IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.665 of 2007 Kundan Yadav son of Late Mainu Yadav, resident of village Kahra Ward No.13, P.S.-Saharsa, District Saharsa. ……Plaintiff No.5-Petitioner. Versus 1. Bholi Yadav son of Late Debu Yadav 2. Chhathu Yadav son of Late Debu Yadav 3. Khushilal Yadav son of Late Debu Yadav All are resident of village Kahra, Ward No.13, P.S.+ District Saharsa. ……Defendants 1st party-Opposite Parties 1st set 4. Babuji Yadav son of Late Kanhai Yadav 5. Jagdeo Yadav son of Late Mauji Yadav Both resident of village Kahra, Ward No.4, P.S.+ District Saharsa. …….Defendants 2nd party-Opposite parties 2nd set. 6. Murli Yadav son of Late Arjun Yadav 7. Bipin Yadav son of Murli Yadav 8. Babloo Yadav son of Murli Yadav 9. Madan Yadav son of Mainu Yadav 10. Raghunandan Yadav S/o Mainu Yadav 11. Sanjay Yadav son of Mainu Yadav 12. Sohan Yadav son of Late Laxmi Yadav All are resident of village Kahra, Ward No.13, P.S.+ District Saharsa. ……..Plaintiffs-Opposite parties 3rd set. For the petitioner : M/s Pramod Mishra, Vivek Kumar and Vijay Kr. Mukul, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 16.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by plaintiff no.5- petitioner challenging order dated 13.01.2007, by which learned Sublrdinate Judge-III, Saharsa allowed the application filed by the defendants first set for amendment of their written statement in Title Suit No. 70 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- 2 petitioner along with plaintiffs-opposite parties third set for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. 4. However, before hearing of the suit could start, the defendants 1st set filed an application dated 07.08.2006 for amendment of their written statement. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that it was meant to delay the disposal of the suit and to fill up the lacuna in the written statement, which cannot be allowed. However, the said application for amendment has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.01.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. The law in this regard is well-settled that it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possible cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party as after all amendments of pleadings would not amount to decision on the issues involved, rather they would only serve advance notices to the otherside as to the plea which a party might take up at the time of final hearing of the suit. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)