IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.573 of 2009 Smt.Geeta Sinha @ Geeta Devi @ Gita Sinha, wife of late Jogesh Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla Balgovind Bhawan, North Mandiri, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. --- Petitioner ---- Defendant No.1. Versus 1. Sri Anjani Kumar, son of Sri Dineshwar Prasad Sinha, resident at Mohalla North Mandiri, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna --- Opposite Party/Plaintiff. 2. Smt. Bindu Kumari, D/O Sri Ram Bharosa Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Gazipur, P.S. Magadh Medical, Gaya, P.O. Airodrome, District- Gaya --- Opposite Party/Defendant 2nd Party. 3. Sri Gopal Kumar, son of Sri Harihar Prasad , resident of Mohalla-Lodipur, Budh Marg, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. G.P.O. Town and District- Patna ---- Opposite Party ---- Defendant 3rd Party. ---------------------------------- 5. 25.11.2011 Heard Mr. Krishan Chandra for the petitioner (defendant no.1), and Mr. Jashbir Singh Arora for opposite party no.1 (the plaintiff). This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendant no.1 of Title Suit No. 82 of 2008, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Ist Court, Patna, whereby the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the 2 parties. It is evident that the application for amendment was filed, and has been allowed, even before issues have been framed. It further appears that the amendment is really towards correction of typographical errors in the plaint and/or supplying some of the omissions in the plaint and, in any case, does not change the nature of the suit. It goes without saying that permission to amend the plaint does not mean that relief(s) have Pro-Tanto been granted to the plaintiff. It only means that he will be allowed to lead evidence to that extent, and it also goes without saying that the defendant will have equal right to lead evidence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned court has rightly allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. We do not find any merit in this revision application. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)