IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1004 of 2009 1. Ram Vijay Singh 2. Uday Singh 3. Anugrah Singh 4. Pramod Singh 5. Ram Niranjan Singh 6. Gopal Saran Singh 7. Ajay Kumar Singh Serial no.1 to 7 are sons of late Musafir Singh, Resident of village Bherhiya, P.S. Gaya Mufassil, Now Buniyad Ganj, P.O. Biju Bigha, District Gaya. …..Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Ram Bilash Singh 2. Ram Prawesh Singh Both sons of late Bhagwat Singh, Resident of village Bherhiya, P.S. Gaya Mufassil, Now Buniyad Ganj, P.O. Biju Bigha, District Gaya. ……Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioners : M/s Shrinandan Prasad and Ashok Kumar No.1, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 08.05.2009 by which learned Additional Munsif-XI, Gaya rejected their application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.217 of 1994 (01/2009). 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners in which relief ‘a’ was sought for declaration that defendants had acquired no right, title and interest in the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint. In the said suit defendants 2 appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties and after its completion the evidence was closed and arguments started. 4. It transpires that at this stage the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint for deleting the aforesaid relief ‘a’ and substituting it with a relief for declaration of plaintiffs’ title. The said application for amendment was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 17.12.2008. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiffs and it attained finality. 5. It further transpires that immediately thereafter on 23.01.2009 the plaintiffs filed similar application for amendment of the plaint praying deletion of relief ‘a’ from the plaint and in its place adding a relief that the plaintiffs’ possession over Schedule A land be declared. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 08.05.2009. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that neither any reason was shown for such a long delay in seeking the said amendment specially when it required evidence and a similar application for amendment had already been rejected, nor there was any justification to delay the proceeding of the suit, which is already fifteen years old, on such a frivolous pretext. 7. Hence this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any 3 jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )