IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.360 of 2009 Indrawati Devi W/o Satyadeo Prasad, resident of P.O. & P.S. Phatpar Rani, District Deoria, at present residing at Main Road Narkatiaganj, P.O. & P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran. ………… Petitioner/Plaintiff . Versus 1.Prahlad Prasad Sinha S/o Late Hanuman Prasad, R/O Village- arwat Pasrain, P.S.-Bettiah Mofussil, District- West Champaran. 2.Ahmed Hussain S/o Sujan Mian, R/o Village- Harsidhi, P.O. Harsidhi, District–West Champaran. .O.Ps./Defendants No.1&2. ---------------------------------- 4 17.11.2011 Heard Mr.P.K.Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Shanti Kumar for O.P.No.1.The plaintiff of Title Suit No.85 of 1979 has preferred this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2008, whereby application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. We have perused the materials on records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us in view of the materials placed before us that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the suit property acquired by the present plaintiff from Mostt. Pataia Devi by a registered deed of absolute sale of 1964, has been alienated by one Sita Ram Raut in favour of the defendant of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendants ( O.Ps. herein) has placed before us paragraphs 16 to 18 of the written statement in an effort to satisfy us that it was clearly stated therein that the same suit property had been alienated in favour of the present defendants by one Sita Ram Raut. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The written statement does not state to that effect, and the learned trial court has prima facie erred in concluding that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed in favour 2 of the defendants. We are mindful of the position that the suit has progressed, the plaintiff has closed their evidence, and the defendants are early stage of their evidence. As stated herein, in view of the position that the plaintiffs learnt of the sale deed about the suit property in favour of these defendants, not from the written statement but later on, followed by the instant application the amendment, it is not late. In the result, civil revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2008, passed in Title Suit No.85 of 1979 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1, Bettiah, West Champaran, is hereby set aside. The plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint is hereby allowed. AnilKrSinha (S.K.Katriar ,J.)