IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.933 of 2009 Satrughan Prasad son of Nirsan Bhagat resident of Mohalla Sahu Road P.O. and P.S Town Muzaffarpur Dist. Muzaffarpur Defendant-Petitioner Versus Smt. Vidya Devi of wife of Ramesh Kumar resident of Mohalla Nai Bazar P.O. and P.S Town Muzaffarpur Dist. Muzaffarpur Plaintiff-Opposite party ---------- For the petitioner: Mr Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate --------- 04/ 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 27.05.2009 by which learned Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur rejected his application for amendment in his written statement filed in Eviction Suit no. 23 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff - opposite party in the year 2001 for a decree of eviction of the defendant on the ground of expiry of fixed period of lease and other ancillary reliefs under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982. In the said suit the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested, where after issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was started and completed and there after evidence of the defendant started and several witnesses on his behalf were examined. 4. It was only thereafter that an application was filed by the defendant on 30.03.2009 for amendment of the written statement with regard to the claim that during the pendency there was agreement between the parties outside the court and the defendant gave Rs 1 lakh 50 thousand to the plaintiff for giving five feet wide portion of the - 2 - disputed premises from west out of 15 feet then the defendant will continue as tenant in the disputed premises. 5. The said claim of the defendant was contested by the plaintiff on various grounds and thereafter considering the respective claims of the parties the learned court below and the materials produced by them rejected the said application for amendment of the written statement vide its order dated 27.05.2009 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. The defendant vehemently challenges the said impugned order of the learned court below, but no chit of paper has been produced by the defendant with regard to the alleged agreement during the pendency of the suit nor there is anything else to show the genuiness of defendant’ claim, rather it is quite apparent that the defendant had filed the said application only to delay the disposal of the suit 7. In the said 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)