IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2101 of 2009 1.M/S AGARWAL METAL STORES, PROPRIETORY CONCERN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL 2.KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL SON OF HIRALAL AGARWAL, PETITIONER NO.1 SITUATED AT AND PETITIONER NO.2 (AS SELF AND PROPRIETOR OF PETITIONER NO.1) RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAI SARAK (GURU GOVIND SINGH PATH) PATNA CITY, P.O. & P.S. CHOWK PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA. -PETITIONERS (IN CR NO.2101/2009) 1. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL SON OF SRI NAGARMAL AGARWAL, 2. NAGARMAL AGARWAL SON OF HIRALAL AGARWAL, BOTH RESIENT OF MOHALL NAI SARAK (GURU GOVIND SINGH PATH) PATNA CITY, P.O. & P.S. CHOWK PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA. -PETITIONER (IN CR NO.2102/2009 Versus GATRUMAL KANODIA SON OF LATE MADAN LAL KANODIA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOWK SHIKARPUR, P.O & P.S. CHOWK PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA. OPPOSITE PARTY (IN BOTH THE CASES) _____ For the Petitioners : M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi & Jitendra Kishore Verma For opp.Party : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi & Ratan Kumar Dubey 3 29.01.2010 Both these Civil Revisions arise out of orders 2 passed in two Eviction Suits bearing Title Eviction Suits no.21 of 1995 and 22 of 1995. Parties in both the Suits are same. Issues are also same. Suit premises is also same. However, the different portion of the same premises is in consideration in both the suits. Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party. Without going into the merit of the respective cases of the parties, this order is being passed upon consensus having been reached between the parties. In both the cases amendment of written statement has been refused by the Additional Munsif-7, Patna City. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court towards Annexure-3 in both the cases which was a petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite party in both the Eviction Suits wherein it has categorically been stated that the plaintiff would not have any objection if the amendment in the written statement is allowed without prejudice to his cases. 3 Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties appearing herein submits upon instruction that the opposite parties are taking same stands before this court also as the opposite parties would not have any objection if the amendment concerned is allowed without prejudice to the case of the plaintiff and his rights. In that view of the matter, upon such consensus being reached between the parties, following consented order is being passed. The orders passed in both the cases refusing amendment are set aside and concerned amendment in petition, as contained in annexure-1 in both the cases, are allowed without prejudice to the case and rights of the plaintiff. Since it has been jointly submitted that final hearing of the Eviction Suits are already going on, the Court concerned is directed to hear both the cases on day to day basis and dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within fifteen days from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Court concerned would refrain from granting adjournment even for a short period on any ground whatsoever to any side unless and until it is fully satisfied that the same would be essential for the ends of 4 justice. The parties have also undertaken before this Court that they will fully co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suits concerned. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the Civil Revisions stands disposed of. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad