IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.332 of 2008 GAYATRI DEVI, W/O Vishwanath Singh, resident of Mohalla Ratanpur, Gudari Raj Ke Chowk, PS Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran … (Defendant) Petitioner Versus Smt.HIRA DEVI W/O Makeshswar Mishra, resident of Mauza Chawkhara, PS Kopa, District Saran …(Plaintiff) Opp. Party ----------- 05- 30.7.2010 Heard Mr.Anant Kumar Bhaskar for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the opposite party although she has entered appearance through counsel and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. The sole defendant has preferred this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the validity of the order dated 30.1.2008, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge VII, Saran at Chapra, in Title Suit No.435 of 1998 (Smt. Hira Devi v. Gayatri Devi), whereby the defendant’s application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. It appears that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for specific performance of contract. As is evident, the suit was instituted in 1998 and is still pending. Towards the end of 2007, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement by inserting words to the effect that she had returned the sum of Rs.5000/- to the 2 plaintiff. The same has been rejected on the ground that this is a very old suit, the defendant had filed her written statement way back in 1999, the plaintiff has closed her evidence, the defendant has already examined four witnesses, and disposal of the suit is nearing end. He has also Prima Facie found that the proposed amendment may change the nature of the suit and will amount to setting up a case which may be different from the one already set up in the written statement. 2. We are of the view that rejection of the defendant’s application for amendment of written statement is based on sound and tenable grounds. We also feel that the proposed amendment may change the defendant’s case. Furthermore, it is a very old suit and has made substantial progress by now, and is nearing conclusion. It appears to be a malafide application to delay the disposal of the suit. 3. This civil revision application is accordingly rejected. Forward a copy of the order to 3 the learned trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. ( S K Katriar ) mrl