IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1888 of 2006 PARMESHWER YADAV & ORS Versus RAM JULUM YADAV & ORS ----------- 3. 14.5.2009 Heard Smt. Namrata Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in the court below is aggrieved by an order of amendment passed by Munsif Ist, Madhubani in T.S.No.23 of 1996 on 8.9.2006/11.9.2006 by which the court below allowed the defendants’ prayer for incorporating some amendments in some of the paragraphs of written statement which was filed by them on 23.9.1996. Smt. Mishra has firstly contended that it was too belated to allow the prayer and that the incorporation of the very amendment sought for could be changing the nature of the suit. I have gone through the petition seeking amendment which is Annexure-1 to the present petition and after considering the statements made therein, I find that the order allowing the amendment of the suit is not of a nature as to changing the very nature of the suit or could be said following in the category of changing the - 2 - previous admission made by the defendant through their written statements. They have made some denial or inserted some connected facts besides admitting that the deed of gift which is the basis of the suit was duly executed. Whether the deed of gift was forged and fabricated or was never acted upon, these could be issues to be decided by the court below and that remains within that realm. This court has nothing to do on that part of the litigation. After having considered the amendment petition, I find that the order on amendment in favour of the Opposite Party does not have any material irregularity or any wrong application of jurisdictions, considering which, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made very clear that if the court finds that the plaintiff had been jumping with any surprise by the defendants then the court below shall allow the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )