IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.335 of 2007 ---- Nathuni Poddar son of Late Gudri Poddar, Resident of Village Ulao, Tola-Rajapur, P.O. Singhaul, P.S. Muffasil Begusarai, District-Begusarai. -- Defendant no.1- Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt.Ful Kumari Devi wife of Arbind Kumar and D/o Late Brhamdeo Poddar, resident of Village Ulao, Tola-Rajapur, P.O.Singhaul, P.S. Muffasil, District-Begusarai. --Plaintiff-Opposite Party. 2. Smt. Siya Devi, wife of Jugeshwar Poddar and D/o Late Lalpari Devi, resident of Samsa, P.O. Samsa, P.S. Naokothi, District- Begusarai. 3. Sri Baccha Poddar. 4. Sri Laxmi Poddar. 5. Sri Satyanarayan Poddar. 6. Sri Suryanarayan Poddar. 7. Sri Deo Narayan Poddar. All sons of Late Anpi Devi (daughter of Late Lalpari Devi). All residents of Sanha, P.O. Sanha, P.S. Balia, District- Begusarai. -- Defendants- Opposite 2nd Parties. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Pramod Kumar Sinha, Madhukar Narain Sinha, Arvind Kumar Sharma No.1 and Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 02. 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 11.12.2006 by which the learned Additional Munsif IV, Begusarai allowed the petition of the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.67 of 1992. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for partition of the suit properties. In the said suit, the - 2 - defendants appeared, filed their written statement, issues were framed and evidence started. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of deceased-defendant no.2 has already concluded and the evidence of defendant no.1-petitioner is almost closed. He further submits that in the said circumstances, the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 had filed a petition for amendment of plaint which will clearly prejudice the claim of the defendants and would put them in undue loss. 5. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that defendant no.2 has died and in her place her heirs have already been substituted in the suit and they are opposite parties no.2 to 7 in the instant civil revision besides petitioner. It further transpires that the learned trial court has considered the matter in detail and has found that an earlier petition of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint was rejected on 21.12.2005 but that amendment was not similar to the instant matter and was not maintainable. He further found that the instant amendment sought by the plaintiff is of completely different nature and it would neither change the nature of the suit, nor would affect the interest of justice, rather they would be necessary to be incorporated for just and proper decision of the suit. 6. This court finds that the suit is of the year 1992, i.e. much prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the years 1999 and 2002 and hence there was no difficulty for the - 3 - plaintiff to file a petition for amendment of the plaint at this stage if he is able to prove the genuineness of his statement and the interest of justice. Here in the instant case, the plaintiff has been able to show the genuineness of his statement and also that the amendments sought were necessary for the court to reach at a just and proper decision in the suit which the learned court below has affirmed. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 8. However, the defendants must be given a chance of rebuttal only with respect to the amendment sought by the plaintiff. The learned court below is also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit which is already 17 years old. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)