IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14408 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Versus Satish Chandra Mishra ----------- 03. 09.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dineshwar Mishra on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by Munsif I, Chapra in Eviction Suit No.9 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below allowed the amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing the suit, there was no statement regarding personal requirement by the plaintiff in the plaint but by way of amendment, he is trying to introduce a new fact regarding personal requirement. Therefore, the learned Court below should not have allowed the amendment application. Admittedly, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issues have not yet been framed nor evidences have been started. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below observed that since the trial had not begun, there is no question of any prejudice to the defendant arises and, therefore, allowed the amendment application. In a decision reported in (2008) 14 S.C.C. 364, the Apex Court has held that pretrial amendment should be 2 allowed liberally. Admittedly, the amendment sought for here is pretrial amendment. In such view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)