IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.809 of 2009 Bigna Kunwar @ Bigyani Kunwar, wife of Late Jai Ram Singh, Resident of Village- Tengrahi, Police Station-Bariya, District-Ballia (U.P.) at present residing at village Khalpura Bala, Police Station- Chapra (Mufassil), District-Saran………....Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Jagdish Singh son of Late Raghunandan Singh, 2. Mangaran Singh, son of Late Raghunandan Singh 3. Dipan Singh @ Dipnarayan Singh, son of Late Sheo Nandan Singh. 4. Vishwanath Singh, son of Late Sheo Nandan Singh. 5. Bablu Singh, son of Late Shukhdeo Singh. 6. Niraj Singh, son of Late Shukhdeo Singh All above residents of Village-Khalpura Bala, Police Station-Chapra (Mufassil), District-Saran………………..Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : M/s Suraj Narain Yadav and Satya Prakash, Advocates. For the opposite parties : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 03.03.2009 by which learned Munsif-II, Chapra rejected her application for amendment in her written statement filed in Eviction Suit No.78 of 2007. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs etc. In the aforesaid suit, defendant appeared and filed her affidavit for leave to contest which was allowed by the 2 learned court below, whereafter she prayed that her affidavit be treated as her written statement and that prayer was also allowed by the learned court below. 4. It transpires that on the basis of pleadings of both the parties issues were framed and the hearing of the suit was started. It was much thereafter that the defendant filed an application for amendment of her written statement on 12.01.2009. The said application was admittedly filed after issues were framed and the hearing was started and hence the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended vide amendment of 2002 was to be applicable, but no valid reason could be shown by the defendant for such a delay in filing of the application for amendment of her written statement in an eviction suit. 5. The learned court below also considered the merit or otherwise of the said application, in detail, and found that there was no occasion for allowing such elaborate amendments which were frivolous and meant to change the nature of the suit and his previous pleadings and was thus not fit to be allowed. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )