IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.161 of 2008 ---- 1. Rukmini Devi wife of Ramdohin Pandey 2. Sheopujan Pandey sosn of Ramdohin Pandey Both resident of village - Bharoob, P.S. Obra, District- Aurangabad. Plaintiffs-petitioners. Versus 1. Ambika Pandey 2. Brij Mohan Pandey Both sons of Nand Kishore Pandey. 3. Kailash Kuer wife of Late Kapildeo Pandey 4. Ramanuj Pandey son of Late Kapildeo Pandey 5. Asha Devi 6. Krishna Devi 7. Sharda Devi 8. Saroj Devi 9. Suphi Devi 10. Sushma Devi All daughter of Late Kapildeo Pandey. All are resident of Village-Bharoob, P.S. Obra, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). Defendants-opposite parties 1st Set. 11. Collector, Aurangabad. 12. Executive Magistrate, R.E.O.Aurangabad. Defendants-opposite parties 2nd Set. ---- For the petitioners : Mr. Dhrub Narain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 02. 19.11.2009 This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 11.12.2007 by which the learned Munsif, Aurangabad partly rejected their application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.44 of 1980. 2. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction against the defendants directing them to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties. 3. It transpires that the defendants appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed and evidence on behalf of both - 2 - the parties were led and closed much earlier. 4. It further transpires that when the suit was at its fag end for arguments, an application was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for several amendments in their plaint. It appears from the impugned order of the learned court below as well as application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners that there were some amendments which were of simple nature not requiring any further pleadings or evidence on behalf of both the parties and hence the said amendments were allowed. However, there were some amendments sought by the plaintiffs which were of serious nature alleging that the plaintiffs-petitioners had been dispossessed as far back as on 16.06.1981. 5. The learned court below very carefully considered the matter and found that the application for amendment was filed on 06.09.2007 after more than 26 years of the alleged dispossession without showing any reason as to why such an application was not filed earlier when the issues were framed or when the evidence of the parties were led. It was also found that if the said amendment was allowed it would adversely affect the defendants and would require re-start of the entire hearing of the suit. Hence the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said amendment. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)