IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.82 of 2008 SHEO NATH SAH Versus ARUN SINGH ----------- 05. 05.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instances of learned counsel for the parties. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 01.11.2007 by which the learned Munsif, Danapur, dismissed the petition of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of his plaint in Title Suit No.53 of 2003. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant-opposite party with respect to the suit properties. The defendant appeared and contested the suit claiming his own title. Thereafter issues were framed and evidences were led by both the parties and only when the evidence was closed and the suit was placed for argument, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a petition for amendment of his plaint which has been rejected by the learned court below. The suit is of 2003 and hence provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Amending Act, 2002 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in which it had been provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. - 2 - In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the defendant in his pleading has categorically claimed his title but no amendment was sought by the plaintiff thereafter and accordingly issues were framed and hearing of the suit started. Even during the evidence of the parties no such amendment was sought by the plaintiff, hence it cannot be said that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not raise the said question before the commencement of the trial. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition of the plaintiff-petitioner. Hence, 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. sunil (S.N.Hussain,J.)