IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.482 of 2009 1. Sri Bhikhari Das. 2. Sri Raghulal Das. Both sons of late Virangi Das, resident of Village- Harpur, Ailoth, P.S. Musarigharari, District- Samastipur. …..Plaintiff…Petitioners. Versus 1. Ramsaran Paswan, son of late Ramfal Paswan. 2. Ram Udgar Paswan, son of Sri Ramsaran Paswan. Both residents of Village+ P.O.- Harpur Ailoth, P.S.- Musarigharari, District- Samastipur. …Defendant 1st Party…Opp. Party 1st Party. 3. Vivek Paswan, son of late Chotan Paswan, resident of village and Post- Harpur Ailoth, P.S. Musarigharari, District- Samastipur. …Defendant 2nd party…Opp. 2nd party. ----------- 03- 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha for the petitioners. This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No.9 of 2005, and are aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd court, Samastipur, whereby their application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed belatedly, and will also change the nature of the suit. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the suit has been instituted for 2 declaration of title and recovery of possession of a portion of the same which the defendants have allegedly encroached. The plaint, inter alia, states that the defendants encroached to the extent of five dhurs. However, the Pleader Commissioner in his report stated that the encroachment is to the extent of 14 dhurs leading to the application for amendment of the plaint. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that it has been filed belatedly, and will change the nature of the suit. 3. It appears to us that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. Even if the proposed amendment is allowed, the suit will nevertheless remain one for declaration of title, and removal of encroachment though now for a bigger area. As to the second aspect of the matter, the petitioners have not placed any material on record to satisfy whether or not they were prompt in filing the application for amendment, or it was belatedly filed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the application for amendment of plaint in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners that, if the 3 proposed amendment is allowed, they shall re-examine only the Pleader Commissioner. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.2.2009 is hereby set aside, and the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners is hereby allowed. The learned trial court shall now proceed in accordance with law with the restriction on the plaintiffs that they shall re-examine only the Pleader Commissioner. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/