IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.106 of 2007 1. Kamal Rai, son of late Etwari Rai 2. Satya Narayan Rai, son of late Ramgir Rai 3. Rajendra Rai 4. Mahendra Rai Both sons of late Ramgir Rai All residents of village Saraiya Tola, Mishrauliya, Post Office Dewariya Kothi, P.S. Paroo, District Muzaffarpur ……..Defendants-Petitioners -versus- 1. Mukhlal Rai, son of late Rama Rai, village Saraiya Tola, Mishrauliya, Post Office Dewariya Kothi, P.S. Paroo, District Muzaffarpur Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandey, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate. ---------- 05/ 06.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 15.09.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Muzaffarpur, allowed plaintiff’s replication to the amendment made by the defendants in their written statement. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration of his title over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Subsequently they filed a petition in the trial court for amendment of their written statement, which was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 20.11.2000. 4. The said order of the trial court was challenged by 2 the defendants-petitioners in Civil Revision No.38/2001, which was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2001 (Annexure 1/1) and the said order of the trial court was set aside holding that the amendment sought for by way of introduction of Bharna deed and the sale deed and the pleading that the defendants acquired the dispute land through the sale deed in question was allowed as alternative defence without allowing the prayer of the defendants for deleting their earlier defence that they got the land in question through settlement 90 years ago. 5. The said order of this Court was challenged by the plaintiff-opposite party in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1365/2002 and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 11.02.2002 (Annexure ½ of this civil revision ) dismissed the said petition holding that the discretion exercised by the High Court in permitting amendment in the written statement cannot be interfered with but the plaintiff-petitioner has the liberty of making consequential amendment and join in trial on the new plea now sought to be put forth by the defendants by way of amendment. 6. It transpires that in view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition in the court below on 17.05.2005 for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the learned court on 01.08.2005. This order of the trial court was challenged by the defendants-petitioners in Civil Revision No. 2100 of 2006, which was allowed by a Bench of this Court on 22.06.2006 and the order of the trial court allowing 3 amendment of the plaint was set aside holding that in such circumstances process of amendment of the written statement and plaint so on and so forth would carry on ad infinitum and hence if the plaintiff wants to clarify or change any stand in view of the written statement/amended written statement, the procedure is filing of a replication but not amendment of the plaint. 7. It transpires that in view of the aforesaid observation of this Court, the plaintiff filed a replication to the amendment made by the defendants in their written statement and the said replication was allowed by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 15.09.2006. 8.Although learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 11.02.2002 (Annexure ½) had given liberty to the petitioners to make consequential amendment in the plaint and join in the trial on the new plea raised by the defendants by way of amendment in the written statement. The said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court was, perhaps, not shown to the Court deciding Civil Revision No. 2100 of 2006 vide order dated 22.06.2006 but even according to the said order of this Court dated 22.06.2006, the plaintiff-opposite party was permitted to file a replication with regard to amendment sought by the defendants-petitioners in their written statement. 9. The learned court below while passing the impugned order has considered the points raised by both the parties and has 4 come to the conclusion that the replication filed by the plaintiff was confined to the amendment made by the defendants in their written statement. It also transpires that when the defendants have amended their written statement raising a fact, which was completely contrary to the facts mentioned in their written statement, the plaintiffs must be given a chance in view of the said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )