IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.808 of 2007 SATYENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus SMT.SUPRIYA VERMA ----------- 4 29/7/2008 I.A. No. 2672 of 2007. For the reasons mentioned therein, the delay in filing this civil revision application is condoned. Heard counsel for the petitioner on merits. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order seeking to keep the application for seeking amendment in the written statement pending for consideration and for taking a decision after conclusion of the evidence is not a correct approach envisaged in law. As a matter of fact, written statement is a basic document on which issues can be framed and if certain amendments were sought in the written statement the court below ought to have taken into consideration as to whether any prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff. For this purpose, this Court has perused the plaint and the proposed amendment in written statement and has found that in paragraph 15 there are clear pleadings to the facts mentioned about criminal case. Apparently, on that score wife, opposite party, is not going to be prejudiced. Second aspect for which amendment has been sought is that despite efforts made by the petitioner the wife did not came back to live with him though he was prepared to restore such relationship. Even 2 this aspect has been explained in paragraph 18 of the written statement. Therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite party even on this score. Be that as it may, since the court below has not passed a firm order on the application of the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement, this Court would direct the court below to do so within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and any evidence would be taken by the court below only after an order is passed on the said application seeking amendment. With the above observation this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar