IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13948 of 2010 1. RUKMINI KUER WIDOW OF LATE JAGARNATH PANDEY R/O VILL.- JAIHIND TENDUA, P.S.- MALI (NABINAGAR), DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 2. HARINANDAN PANDEY S/O LATE JAGARNATH PANDEY R/O VILL.- JAIHIND TENDUA, P.S.- MALI (NABINAGAR), DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. MUNNA BHAGAT S/O LATE GANESH BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- JAIHIND TENDUA, P.S.- MALI (NABINAGAR), DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ----------- 2/ 27/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent. The petitioner was the plaintiff. The suit having been decreed the defendant has preferred Title Appeal No.11/03. At the appellate stage the petitioner desired to amend the plaint by incorporating a prayer for demolition of the offending constructions which has been rejected by order dated 4.6.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the proposed amendment the nature of the suit was not going to be changed inasmuch as in the plaint at paragraph-8 and 9 both allegations of illegal construction had been raised and that the respondent had stopped construction due to fear of the police. Therefore no new facts were sought to be introduced at the appellate stage and only consequential relief was sought. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the application urged that it would change the nature of the suit and require remand of the matter to the trial - 2 - court. The prayer for amendment was belated and therefore was rightly disallowed. The Court is satisfied that once the issue of illegality of construction was adequately raised in the plaint, any relief with regard to demolition of such illegal construction is only a consequential prayer and does not amount to a fresh plaint introducing new facts much less altering the nature of the suit. The order dated 4.6.2008 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)