IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.335 of 2008 SUBEY LAL SINGH, S/o Late Nirshu Singh, resident of village- Chandanpatti, Sub-Division and Munsafi- Muzaffarpur East, District- Muzaffarpur ……….Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. JAGDISH SINGH 2. Ram Chandra Singh Both sons of Late Domi Singh, resident of village- Sarmastpur, Munsafi- Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur ………. Plaintiff/Opp. Party For the Petitioner:- Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn, Advocate ----------- 4 28.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 210 of 2000 whereby the Munsif East Muzaffarpur has allowed certain amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those amendments have been allowed at a belated stage when the Suit was fixed for hearing. He also submits that the relief portion is sought to be amended and such amendment is time barred. It appears from the impugned order that a petition for amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiffs wherein it was claimed that the plaintiffs had been dispossessed on 16.1.2008 during the pendency of Title Suit No. 210 of 2000. Since the allegation is that during pendency of Suit defendant has dispossessed the plaintiffs, therefore, occasion has arisen for amendment in the plaint including the relief portion by inserting a relief for recovery of possession. The application aforesaid filed under Order 6 Rule 17 was allowed by the - 2 - court below on consideration of the facts and circumstances and after imposing cost of Rs.200/-. At the same time the defendant was also allowed to file additional written statement with regard to the amended part of plaint. I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This Civil Revision is dismissed. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)