IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.104 of 2008 1. Devendra Prasad Narayan Singh @ Devendra Narayan Singh. 2. Kavindra Prasad Narayan Singh @ Kavinder Narayan Singh Both sons of late Suryamani Prasad Narayan Singh 3. Smt. Phoolbadan Devi @ Phoolbadan Kuwar wife of late Suryamani Prasad Narayan Singh 4. Smt. Pushpa Devi daughter of late Suryamani Prasad Narayan Singh All residents of village Gutani Pargana Chaubar Police Station Gutani, District Siwan.……..Defendants-Petitioners. Versus Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad son of Sri Mahavir Prasad, resident of village Gutani Pargana Chaubar Police Station Gutani, District Siwan ……………..Plaintiff-Opposite party. For the petitioners : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 02/ 30.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 22.11.2007 by which learned Munsif-I, Siwan, allowed the amendment sought by the plaintiff- opposite party in Title Suit No.190 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party for declaration that the defendants had no right to erect permanent Chhaja over the suit land and also for injunction and other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants-petitioners appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff. 4. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff filed an application dated 20.07.2007 for amendment of the plaint in relief no.1. The said application was contested by the defendants, who filed their rejoinder on 22.08.2007, but the 2 learned court below allowed the amendment application vide its order dated 22.11.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below, but the fact remains that the hearing of the suit is at a very preliminary stage and amendment had become necessary due to the report of the Pleader Commissioner which is still under challenge. Furthermore, the said amendment did not change the nature of the suit nor it put the defendants to any disadvantage as they have still to produce their evidence and the learned court below has given ample opportunity to them to file their additional evidence if they so desired. 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )