IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.341 of 2007 ----------- Moharram Ansari, son of Rahman Mian, resident of village Kandhgapi, Pargana Kowadi, P.O. Barheyan, Via Hathuwa, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj ….Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Ganga Sah, son of Gehuwan Sah, resident of village Kandhgapi, Pargana Kowadi, P.O. Barheya, Via Hathua, P.S. Mirganj District Gopalganj. …Plaintiff-Opposite Partry ------ For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Nasrul Huda Khan,Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. ------ 03/ 05.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 20.12.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Gopalganj allowed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 336 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for specific performance of agreement and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the same by way of filing his written statement. 4. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit application dated 22.12.2006 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff- opposite party for amendment of the plaint only by way of adding two words, namely, `Baskothi, Tarhperh’ in the schedule of the plaintiff describing the suit property. The said application for amendment has been allowed by the learned court below vide order 2 dated 20.12.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below that the adding of the said words `Baskothi, Tarhperh’ would change the nature of the suit land, which cannot be allowed specially when in the deed in question the said words `Baskothi, Tarhperh’ were not there. 6. The said arguments are not convincing as the plaintiff-opposite party does not want to change the number and description of the suit property, rather he wanted to add those two words `Baskothi, Tarhperh’ for mere description. However, if such a description was contrary to the documents involved it may affect the suit one way or the other but for that the plaintiff-opposite party cannot be restrained from making amendment in his plaint according to his wish specially when the proposed amendment is not going to change the nature of the suit and the learned court below has found it necessary. 7. In the said 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )