IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11624 of 2010 1. SRI MEHTA BISHWNATH S/O LATE DHORHA MEHTA R/O MOHALLA- BAHRI DHAWALPURA, KADAM TAL, P.S.- CHOWK, DISTT.- PATNA-800009 Versus 1. SMT. CHANCHAL DEVI D/O SRI RAMDEO SINGH, W/O SRI RAJ NARAIN SINGH R/O MOHALLA- DHAWALPURA, P.S CHOWK, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 03 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 45 of 1999, seeking execution and registration of the sale deed with regard to the suit property and directing acceptance of the balance consideration amount, failing which the execution may be done through the process of Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 9.8.2005, the respondents filed an amendment petition contending that the petitioner as the defendant dispossessed him from the Suit premises on 31.7.2005. But this amendment application was not pressed for nearly five long years till 10.2.2010. This argument is best answered from the recitals contained in the impugned order dated 10.2.2010, that the petitioner himself opted not to be present when the application was called out to oppose the same. The second submission that it changes the very nature of the Suit. The Court is not satisfied of the same. 2 The respondents/plaintiff seeks execution of the sale deed with respect to the Suit property. The fact that he was in possession and had been dispossessed may at best be an aid in the original claim and not seeking a new claim changing the nature of the Suit. In any event of the mater, allowing the amendment application does not stand as confirmation of the dispossession which shall have to be proved by the plaintiff during the course of the trial itself. The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)