IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.487 of 2006 SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus GOPAL PRASAD SINGH & ANR ----------- 3 30.09.2008 In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 4.1.2006 allowing amendment only by replacing boundary of plot no. 2917 in the plaint relating to a declaratory suit, with regard to a sale deed dated 2.11.1995 confined to plot no. 2917, being merely clarificatory or explanatory in nature in no way would cause any prejudice to the defendant petitioner nor would amount to setting out a new case and in any event would also not change the nature of the suit. The plea of the delay in filing of amendment petition on 1.10.2001 by the plaintiff opposite party was/is also not available to the petitioner who had been himself responsible in delaying disposal of such amendment petition by keeping the issue hanging in balance only on account of filing of rejoinder which took him more than a period of four years and was filed only on 19.10.2005. As a matter of fact the Court below should not have given this much of latitude to the petitioner, which was under obligation to dispose of such matter with utmost expedition in order to conclude the hearing of the suit expeditiously. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)