IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.179 of 2008 RAMADHAR THAKUR Versus SMT.MIRDULA DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. A.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when no factum of dispossession complained by the plaintiff-petitioner in the application seeking amendment of plaint was a subsequent event, the same ought to have been not refused as has been done by the court below in the impugned order . The reasoning given by the Court below that such an amendment with regard to an event of 5.12.2006 sought to be brought on record by filing the amendment petition on 27.7.2007 was belated does not impress this court inasmuch as, even if it be assumed that certain contrary report in the mean time was submitted by the Pleader Commissioner, the same could not have been looked into for deciding the question of amendment in plaint. It is so because the onus to prove the fact with regard to his being dispossessed on 5.12.2006 will still lie against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter infact has not been considered by the Court below in a proper manner which has rejected such prayer of the amendment of the petitioner only on the ground of delay. As noted above, there was hardly any significant delay much less delay which could be fatal to the petitioner depriving him from brining the subsequent event on record. In that view of the matter, the part of the impugned order by - 2 - which the application of the petitioner dated 27.7.2007 as with regard to seeking amendment in the plaint was rejected, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order as with regard to the amendment sought in the plaint by the petitioner in his application dated 5.12.2006. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)