IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1970 of 2006 1. Ram Prasad Sah 2. Ram Autar Sah Both Sons of Sukhdeo Sah 3. Nandu Sah son of Late Bawan Sah 4. Janki Devi daughter of Late Rameshwar Sah 5. Laxman Sah son of Late Jagdeo Sah 6. Binod Sah 7. Suresh Sah 8. Umesh Sah All sons of Late Ram Chandar Sah 9. Sitaram Sah son of late Bhunilal Sah 10. Most Girija Devi widow of late Prabhus Sah 11. Sanjai Sah 12. Manoj Sah Both sons of Late Prahus Sah 13. Raj Kumar Sah 14. Batahu Sah 15. Dinesh Sah All sons of late Ganesh Sah 16. Garibnath Sah son of Late Jawahir Sah 17. Sukhdeo Sah son of Late Mitan Sah All are resident of Village- Jhapahan, P.S. Ahiyapur, Anchal- Bochahan, P.O. Jhapahan, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Defendant 1st Prties – Petitioners. Versus 1. Jaddu Sah son of late Bhuran Sah 2. Bhutta Sah son of Khakhuni Sah 3. Jitni Devi widow of late Gulla Sah 4. Pramod Sah 5. Amod Sah 6. Subodh Sah O.P. No. 4 to 6 are minors son of Late Gulla Sah, they are under guardianship of their mother Jitni Devi, All are residents of village- Jhaphan, P.S.- Ahiyapur, P.O. Jhapahan, Anchal – Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Plintiffs- Opposite 1st parties. 7. Anandi Sah son of late Harihan Sah 8. Ram Briksh Sah 9. Sathu Sah 10. Bhuneshwar Sah 11. Phaguni Sah All sons of late Mahavir Sah 12. Kusmi Devi daughter of Dasai Sah All are residents of village- Jhapahan, P.s. Ahiyapur, Anchal – Bochahan, P.O.-Jhapahan, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Defendant 2nd parties- Opposite 2nd parties. ------------ - 2 - 2/ 23.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The Defendant 1st Parties – petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2006 whereby their prayer for amendment in written statement has been rejected by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that certain amendments were necessary in the written statements, which are described in the petition filed for aforesaid purpose as contained in Annexure-1 to this revision application. The court below, on consideration of rival submissions, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed and thereafter the written statement is sought to be amended which will definitely take out the advantage as gained by the plaintiffs, as per the admissions of the defendants and, thus, has rejected the prayer. Annexure-1, which is a copy of the amendment petition also does not indicate that despite due diligence, the defendants could not take steps for such amendment before the commencement of trial. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the court below warranting interference of this court in its discretionary civil revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Uday/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )