IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.563 of 2009 Basant Lal @ Basant Lal Kedia, son of Muralidhar, resident of at, P.O.+ P.S. – District- Gopalganj ---- Defendant --- Appellant --- Petitioner. Versus 1. Krishna Kant Prasad Gupta @ Krishna Kant Gupta, son of Ramchandra Pd. Gupta. 2. Shri Bhushan Prasad Gupta, son of late Ram Chandra Pd. Gupta, both resident at, P.O. + P.S. and District- Goptalganj. ----- Plaintiffs/Respondents/opposite parties (Ist Set) 3. Lallan Pandey, son of late Nagina Pandey, both resident of Village- Sareya Hussi, P.O. and P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ---- Defendant/ Respondents/Opposite parties (2nd Set). 4. Narayan Prasad Kedia, son of Basant Lal Kedia 5. Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of Basant Lal Kedia, both resident of Village-Sareya Ward No.4, P.O. + P.S. + District-Gopalganj ---Intervener Respondents/Opposite party (3rd). ---------------------------------- 5. 28.11.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. S. K. Dwivedi for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 (the plaintiffs). The defendant-appellant of Title Appeal no. 9 of 1986 (Basant Lal Kedia Vs. Krishna Kant Gupta & Ors.), arising out of Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1980, has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 9.3.2009, passed by the learned F.T.C. No.III, Gopalganj, whereby he has rejected his application for amendment of the written 2 statement. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. It appears to us that the defendant-appellant, being the petitioner before us, had filed application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned appellate court, where the main mater is pending, for stay of further proceeding the appeal till the disposal of Title Suit No.5 of 1980. The same was rejected by the learned appellate court giving rise to C.R. No. 613 of 2008, which, in its turn was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.9.2008, with the direction to the learned appellate court to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. The appeal was not disposed of, whereafter the defendant- appellant filed the present application for amendment of his written statement at the appellate stage which has been rejected by the impugned order. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2(the plaintiffs). It appears to us that the present opposite party nos. 1 and 2 had instituted Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1980, which was decreed by the 3 learned trial court giving rise to the aforesaid Title Appeal No.9 of 1986, and continues to languish before the learned appellate court who has not taken care to implement the order dated 16.9.2008, passed in C.R. No.613 of 2008. We are convinced that the present application for amendment of the written statement is frivolous application, has been rightly rejected by the learned appellate court, and entirely meant to prolong his continuance in the suit premises. There is no merit in this civil revision application. In the result, this civil revision application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), which the defendant-appellant shall deposit within a period of four weeks from today with the learned trial court, failing which the appeal shall automatically stands dismissed. The learned appellate court is directed to ensure that the appeal is disposed of, provided it survives, within a period of three months thereafter. Forward copy of this order to the learned District Judge to ensure that such old cases do not languish in the court concerned. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)