IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.42 of 2008 PARAS SINGH, Son of late Shambhu Singh, resident of Village- Bhopatpura, P.O. & P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan.....Petitioner/Plaintiff. Versus 1. Chhote Lal Prasad. 2. Subhash Prasad. 3. Umadhar Prasad. 4. Vinay Kumar Prasad. 5. Binod Kumar Prasad. All are sons of Dwarika Prasad Sonar and resident of Mohalla- Nayee Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Mairwa, District- Siwan...Opposite Party/Defendants 1st Set. 6. Manako Kuer wife of Ram Nath Rajmar. 7. Ram Naresh Rajmar, Son of Late Ram Nath Rajmar. Both are residents of Village- Miskarahi Mathiya, P.O. & P.S.- Mairwa, District- Siwan....Opposite Parties/Defendants 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : None. ----------- 2. 28.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 08.11.2007 by which the Learned Munsif-II, Siwan, rejected his application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No. 14 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration that sale deed dated 14.12.1994 executed by defendant no.7 in favour of the defendant-opposite party Ist Set was illegal, void, forged and fabricated conferring no right, title and interest upon the vendee with respect to the land in question and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared and contested the said suit by filing their written statement challenging also the maintainability of the suit on 2 various grounds. 4. It transpires that after completion of pleadings, issues were framed, evidences were led by the parties and after their conclusion, the evidence was closed and final arguments of the parties started in the suit before the learned court. However, during the said argument, amendment in the plaint has been sought by the plaintiff apparently to fill up the lacuna which the plaintiff found at the time of argument. 5. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has rightly come to conclusion that the amendment claimed was not relevant for the decision of the suit and at this stage it cannot be allowed. Apart from it the said amendment if allowed is definitely going to affect the defendants adversely and unjustly. This Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)