1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.14 of 2008 ----------- Kishun Gond, son of late Shrawan Gond, resident of village Laxmipur, P.O. & P.S. Semara, District West Champaran. ……….. Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus . 1. Kishun Uraon, son of late Charo Uraon, resident of village Badharwa, P.S. Semara (Chiutaha), District West Champaran 2. Lal Babu Mian, son of late Hanif Mian, resident of village Sauraha, P.S. Semara, District West Champaran. …………Defendants-Opposite Parties -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Shashank Sekhar, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : None. --------- 03/ 28.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 22.09.2007, by which learned Munsif, Bagaha ( West Champaran) rejected his application dated 22.09.2007 for amendment of his plaint in Title Suit No. 28 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed on 13.06.2005 by the plaintiff-petitioner for permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who filed written statement on 24.11.2005 stating, interlia, that the suit premises has been sold by defendant no.2 in favour of wife of defendant no.1 by registered deed dated 08.07.2005. 4. It transpires that no further step was taken by the plaintiff and issues were framed in the suit, whereafter, evidence started and now even the evidence has been closed and the suit is fixed for final argument. .5. It transpires that in the meantime the plaintiff filed an 2 application for amendment of his plaint, which was dismissed by the learned court below vide its order dated 05.09.2007, which was never challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner. 6. It further transpires that thereafter the plaintiff again filed another application for amendment of his plaint on 22.09.2007, which has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 22.09.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said impugned order of the learned court below contending that he had filed the said suit on 13.06.2005 and much thereafter D.W.2 executed sale-deed dated 08.07.2005 in favour of wife of defendant no.1 and hence he had no occasion earlier to implead the said purchaser as a party to the suit or to make such statement. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the amendment application so that the dispute between the parties may be decided fully and finally. 8. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that no doubt the suit was filed on 13.06.2005, but the summons of the suit was received by the defendants much after July 2005 and hence defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 had no knowledge of the suit at the time of execution of the sale-deed on 08.07.2005. 9. Furthermore, the defendants admittedly filed their written statement on 24.11.2005 stating the entire facts with regard to sale-deed dated 08.07.2005 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the wife of defendant no.1 with respect to the suit land. But inspite of 3 that the plaintiff did not take any step nor sought any amendment and hence issues were framed and evidences were led and two years thereafter the application for amendment was filed on 22.09.2007. 10. Now at this stage such amendment cannot be allowed because the suit has been filed of the year 2005 after coming into force of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 2002 and also because the trial had commenced much earlier and the plaintiff had failed to show that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. 11. The learned court below has considered the aforesaid matter in detail and had also found that an earlier application for amendment filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed on 05.09.2007 and immediately thereafter a second application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff, which cannot be held to be legally maintainable. Furthermore the principle of Lis pendens would also be applicable in this case. 12. 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 and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 13. However, if the plaintiff-petitioner wants to challenge the sale-deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of wife of defendant no.1 he may file a suit challenging the same, which shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )