IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.552 of 2008 1.Meera Devi W/o Late Kesho Mahton resident of Village Parihara Bhawanipur P.S. Bakhari Pargana Ballia PO Parihara Dist. Begusarai 2. Annu Kumari @ Annu Kumari Devi 3. Madhu Kumari @ Madhu Devi 4. Khushboo Kumari All daughters of Late Kesho Mahton resident of Village Parihara Bhawanipur P.S. Bakhari Pargana Ballia PO Parihara Dist. Begusarai 5. Indu Kumari @ Indu Devi W/o Pikku Kumari D/o Late Kesho Mahton resident of Village Parihara Bhawanipur P.S. Bakhari Pargana Ballia PO Parihara Dist. Begusarai Defendants 3rd Party- Petitioners Versus 1. Narayan Mahto S/o Late Sita Ram Mahton 2. Ram Uday Mahton 3. Ram Ashish Mahton 4. Sachidanand Mahton All sons of Late Narayan Mahton resident of Mauza Parihara Bhawanipur PO Parihara P.S. Bakhari Pargana Ballia Dist. Begusarai Plaintiffs- Opposite Ist Parties 5. Saryug Mahton S/o Late Sita Ram Mahton 6. Anil Kumar Mahton S/o Saryug Mahton 7. Raja Ram Mahton S/o Late Sita Ram Mahton 8. Sanjeeb Kumar Mahton 9. Rajib Kumar Mahton Both sons of Raja Ram Mahton All resident of Mauza Parihara Bhawanipur PO Parihara P.S. Bakhari Pargana Ballia Dist. Begusarai 10. Urmial Devi W/o Chaudhary Mahton 11. Anuranjan Mahton 12. Manoranjan Mahto @ Bedanand Mahton 13. Sanjit Mahton All sons of Chaudhary Mahton 14. Bibha Devi D/o Chaudhary Mahton All resident of Chhoti Rani Sakarpura P.S.Khagariya PO Ranisakarpur Pargana Ballia Dist. Khagariya Defendant 2nd Party- Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Harendra Pd. Singh, Advocate --------- 03 07.09.2009 This civil revision has been heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants 3rd party- - 2 - petitioners challenging order dated 17.01.2008 by which learned Munsif I, Begusarai allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs-opposite party nos.1 to 4 for amendment of their plaint in Title Suit no. 48 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite Ist party for declaration of title, confirmation of possession with respect to the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed on 18.07.2008 and hearing of the case was fixed on 04.08.2008. 4. It transpires that much earlier on 26.09.2006 plaintiffs had filed an application in the said court for amendment of the plaint for adding some facts therein with regard to deed of gift in favour of the defendants. The defendants filed rejoinder claiming that the amendments sought were frivolous and the plaintiffs can not challenge the said deed of gift. The said application for amendment has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 17.01.2008 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. It is quite apparent that the amendments sought by the plaintiffs were allowed by the learned court below much before issues were framed in the suit. From bare reading of the said application for amendment and the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs merely want to add some facts in the plaint whereas they have not sought any amendment in the relief. The law is well settled in this regard that amendment of pleadings does not amount to allowing the claim of the plaintiff rather any claim raised by the plaintiff has to - 3 - be proved by him by valid evidence and only if he is able to prove those facts his original claim or amended facts can be allowed. Furthermore, suit is of the year 2000 i.e. prior to coming into force of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. Furthermore, the amendments sought appear to be necessary for full, final and appropriate adjudication of all the disputes between the parties. 6. In the aforesaid facts and 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)