IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.172 of 2008 ----------- 1. Smt. Meena Devi, wife of late Mahavir Pandit 2. Prabhat Kumar 3. Prashant Kumar Both sons of late Mahabir Pandit. All residents of Mohalla- Harnaha Tola, P.S. Khajekala, District Patna. …Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1.Daya Nand Prasad, son of Budhu Bhagat Yadav, resident of Mohalla Simli Sahdara ( Ram Dhani Road), P.S. Malsalami, P.O. Patna City, District Patna. 2. Jwala Prasad, son of late Ram Sewak Das, resident of Mohalla Ranipur Khidki, P.S. Khajekalan, P.O. Patna City, District Patna. 3. Munna, son of Samin Khan of Mohalla Kashmiri Kothi, P.S. Mohalla Ranipur Ki Khidki, Near Mandiry, P.S. Khajekalan, District Patna. ….Defendants-Opposite Parties. ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh No.2, Advocate. ------- 03/ 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 05.11.2007, by which learned Munsif, Patna City, rejected their application for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 20 of 1996 with respect to the date of a document. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed, both the parties led their evidence, which was closed thereafter and the suit was posted for arguments. 4. At that stage the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid 2 application for amendment of the plaint, which has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 05.11.2007, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below on various grounds but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the date of the sale-deed in question was mentioned in the plaint as 28.12.1948 and the said pleading was supported by the evidence also as the plaintiffs, who deposed as P.Ws., mentioned the date of the said sale-deed as 28.12.1948. 6. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs now at this stage to turn around and say that the date of the aforesaid sale-deed was not 28.12.1948, rather it was 07/08.01.1949. Furthermore, such amendment at this stage would also cause serious loss to the defendants whose evidence has already been closed and the suit is proceeding for arguments. 7. 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. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )