IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1824 of 2009 Md Gayauddin Ansari son of late Md Zafar Ansari resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Defendant- Petitioner Versus 1. Syed Hasan Jafari son of late Maulbi Syed Nafi Hasan resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Plaintiff- Opposite party lst set 2. Bibi Batulan Ara w/o late M.Zafar Ansari 3. Md Sahabudin 4. Md Ziauddin Ansari both sons of late M.Zafar Ansari resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Defendants- Opposite party 2nd set ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Shyam Sunder Sinha, Advocate --------- 05/ 17.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 26.08.2009 by which learned Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur rejected his supplementary written statement filed in Eviction Suit No.28 of 1988 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants on the ground of banafide personal requirement. 3. The original sole defendant filed his written statement as far back as in the year 1996 whereafter he died and his heirs were substituted in his place as defendants, including the petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to the instant civil revision and they had also filed written statement as far back as in the year 1996. 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed application for amendment of his plaint by adding the requirement of his wife in the suit premises which was allowed in the year 2000, whereafter issues - 2 - were framed and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff started and was concluded. It is also apparent that while the matter was at the fag end and the evidence of the defendants was to be produced, an application dated 24.08.2009 was filed by the defendants for filing additional written statement amending their earlier written statement of 1996. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned court below vide its order dated 26.08.2009, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below but from a perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned court below has very carefully gone into the matter and has found that by the amendment either defendants had reiterated what they had stated in the earlier written statement or had claimed their own necessity for the suit premises which is not of any consequence in a suit for eviction in which the bonafide requirement of only the plaintiff has to be considered. Hence it is apparent that the defendants only want to dilly dally the matter and are using dilatory tactics due to which suit is pending since 1988. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)