IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12089 of 2010 BINOD KUMAR CHOURASIYA, S/O RAM SUHAWAN CHOURASIYA, R/O MOHALLA- PADMANPUR CHARAIN, P.S. HARNAUT, DISTT.- NALANDA. …… PETITIONER. VERSUS MOST. SARASWATI DEVI W/O SHRAVAN KUMAR R/O VILL.- AKER, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILL.- CHAURIYA, P.S.- HARNAUT, DISTT.- NALANDA. ….. RESPONDENT. ----------- 02/ 10.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 26.05.2010 by which the Additional Munsif, Biharsharif (Nalanda) allowed amendment petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No.68 of 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid impugned order of the court below and submits that the amendment is sought to be brought after five years of the filing of the suit only when the evidence of the parties are going on and hence the court below should have rejected the said application and should have proceeded with evidence adduced by the parties. 4. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the evidence of the plaintiff had just started and only one witness had been produced when the application for amendment of the plaintiff was filed. Furthermore, from a perusal of the amendment petition - 2 - (Annexure-1) filed by the plaintiff it transpires that amendments sought were only explanatory in nature clarifying the submissions already made in the plaint. Furthermore, the court below has rightly found that the amendment sought was simple in nature without changing the nature of the suit, rather it would be helpful for the court in passing appropriate order. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)