IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.634 of 2007 Sudarshan Mahto, son of late Bhagelu Mahto, resident of village Vrindavan, P.S. Uchakagaon, District Gopalganj. …………Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Most. Sona, wife of late Bhagelu Nonia, daughter of late Bale Nonia, resident of village Vrindavan, P.S. Uchakgaon, District Gopalganj. ……Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st set 2.Jaimangal Mahto 3. Prabhu Mahto Both sons of late Bhagelu Mahto, resident of village Vrindavan, P.S. Uchakgaon, District Gopalganj. …..Plaintiffs-Opposite party 2nd set. 4.Shiv Mangal Mahto, son of late Bhagelu Mahto, resident of village Vrindavan, P.S. Uchakgaon, District Gopalganj. …..Plaintiff-Opposite party 3rd set. For the petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 :Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 08.10.2009 I.A. No.1952 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from filing the civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- 2 petitioner challenging order dated 11.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IX, Gopalganj, rejected his application for reopening of the evidence in Title Suit No.95 of 2002. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for partition of her share in the suit property and also for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendant appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidences were led by the parties. 5. It transpires that in the meantime plaintiff-opposite party no.1 sought an amendment in the relief portion of her plaint, which was allowed and the defendants were also permitted to amend their written statements with respect to the amended portion of the plaint only. 6. It is not in dispute that thereafter the plaintiff did not seek reopening of the evidence nor she sought permission to lead any further evidence. However, the defendant-petitioner filed an application on 31.10.2006 in the court below that his evidence may be reopened as he wanted to lead evidence as per his amended written statement. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 11.12.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. The evidence of the parties in the suit was closed and the plaintiff after amendment in the relief portion of her plaint, did not seek any permission for leading any more evidence. The defendants’ amendment in the written statement can legally be 3 limited only to the extent of amendment in relief portion of the plaint and when the plaintiff had not required any further evidence, the defendant-petitioner was not justified in making such prayer. 8. The learned court below considered the matter in detail and found that the plaintiff claimed to be one of the daughters of Bala Nonia, but the defendant disputed the said fact claiming that she was the daughter of Bangali Nonia. It was also claimed by the defendant that Fekani widow of Bala Nonia executed four deeds of gift in favour of defendants which were also challenged by the plaintiffs. It was also found by the learned court below that the defendant-petitioner had led evidence to prove the validity and genuineness of the said deeds of gift, whereas the plaintiff had produced mortgage deed of conditional sale and got its execution compared by finger print expert during the course of evidence, but the defendant-petitioner never controverted the report of the finger print expert, although ample opportunity was given to him. In the said circumstances, the learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that opening of evidence was not necessary to prove the amended written statement and the defendant-petitioner had already led evidence and had ample opportunity to prove his pleadings and as such reopening of evidence was not required in the interest of justice. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the 4 impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )