IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.510 of 2007 ---- Hardeo Ram S/O Gorakh Ram, resident of Village-Pipra Kothi, P.S.Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. District Manager , Agriculture Farm at Pipra Kothi, P.S.Pipra Kothi, District East Champaran. 2. Joint Director of Agriculture Farm at Muzaffarpur, P.S. Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. --Defendants- O.P’s 1st Party. 3. The Collector, East Champaran at Motihari for authority of Bihar Government. -- Defendant O.P.2nd Party. 4. Nandlal Ram 5. Surendra Ram 6. Harendra Ram All are sons of Gorakh Ram Resident of Village-Pipra Kothi, P.S.-Pipra Kothi, District-East Champaran. -- Plaintiffs-opposite parties 3rd party. ----- For the petitioner : M/s B.J. Ojha & Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 02. 02.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 19.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif Sadar, East Champaran allowed the application dated 15.07.2006 filed by defendants-opposite parties for amendment of their written statement in Money Suit No.10 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for recovery of the price of the Sisam tree which was alleged to have been cut away by the defendants from the plaintiff’s land. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of - 2 - the plaintiffs started. However, after four witnesses of the plaintiff was examined, the defendants filed an application dated 15.07.2006 seeking amendment in their written statement. This application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 19.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 4. From perusal of the impugned order it is quite apparent that the learned court below was very careful in considering the matter in detail, whereafter it had specifically found that the defendants sought amendment merely to add to his defence and to explain the earlier statement with regard to some of the facts about which the learned Additional Government Pleader was not aware in spite of due diligence of the defendants before commencing of the trial. It was also found that the proposed amendment was explanatory in nature and the nature of the suit would not be changed if the same is allowed, rather it was found that if the proposed amendment was not allowed the interest of justice for the determination of real question in controversy between the parties would suffer. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)