IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2421 of 2007 Ashok Singh, son of Ram Bilash Singh, resident of Village- Sagra, Police Station-Nautan, District- Siwan ---- Plaintiff/Petitioner. Versus Ganga Kanu, son of Gauri Kanu, resident of Village-Sagra, Police Station-Nautan, Post Office- Semariya, District- Siwan ------ Defendant/Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 3. 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 7.9.2007, passed by the learned Munsif-II, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 259 of 1997, whereby his application for amendment of pleadings under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit has been instituted for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff filed the amendment application seeking two-fold amendment in the plaint, namely, the area of the land has been erroneously described as 11 Kathas and 10 Dhurs, which should be corrected to read as 11 Kathas, and is attributable to 2 typographical error. The second amendment sought for is that Babu Mahadeo Singh should be described as a Kastkar which has been omitted inadvertently. The defendant resisted the application on various grounds which has been upheld. The learned trial court has held that the plaintiff had made an identical attempt for amendment of pleadings at an early stage but has failed. Secondly, amendment application has been filed after the defendant concluded his argument. He has further held that it is purposive attempt to delay the disposal of the suit, and will result in avoidable harassment to the defendant who may be required to undergo a fresh ground for submission of the supplementary written statement and evidence. It appears to us that these are valid grounds to reject the amendment application. It is quite clear to us that the plaintiff has purposively attempted to delay the disposal of the suit and attempted to file this amendment application after oral arguments concluded. We find no merit in this application. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)