IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.488 of 2007 ----- Md. Kamaluddin son of Late Abdul Rahman of Mohalla Nathnagar, Police –Station Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur. --Plaintiff- Petitioner. Versus 1. Md.Shaukat son of Late Abdul Rahman 2. Mostt. Bibi Sairun Nissa wife of Late S.K.Kalo Mian, Both of village Bangalwa, Police Station- Darhama, District Munger. --Defendants- Opposite Parties. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the opposite parties : None. ----- 02. 21.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 12.12.2006 by which learned Munsif II, Munger rejected his petition for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No.17 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that in the said suit, the defendants- opposite parties appeared and contested and thereafter issues were framed, evidence were led by both the parties and now argument has also started. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the plaintiff was deposing as his last witness he filed an application on 21.09.2006 for amendment of the plaint for addition of statement of fact regarding his dispossession by defendant no.1 on 07.09.2006 - 2 - and also addition of relief for recovery of possession. This application was contested by the defendants who filed their reply on 31.10.2006 stating that the said amendment cannot be allowed as the plaintiff had himself admitted the possession of the defendant and hence the question of ad valorem court fee etc. shall arise. 5. However, the learned court below rejected the said application of the plaintiff-petitioner considering that although the plaintiff’s father had purchased Plot No.530, but it had been wrongly mentioned in his sale deed as Plot No.330, although correct Khata No.571 was mentioned. The learned court below also found that the said sale deed in the name of the father of the plaintiff was of the year 1975, but no correction was made therein till date and hence on that basis, the claim of the plaintiff on Plot No.530 cannot be decided, nor any such amendment was sought in the plaint with respect thereof. 6. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has passed the said order after considering various aspects of the matter as well as points raised by the respective parties. Furthermore, now the arguments are going on and the suit will be decided very soon and there is no occasion for allowing such amendment which would require fresh evidence etc. and would also mean re-starting the entire proceeding afresh. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court - 3 - below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points available to him with regard to his aforesaid claim in the title appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)