IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1714 of 2008 DHANANJAY PRASAD Versus HIRA SINGH ----------- 2 20.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, when a suit has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for seeking eviction of the petitioner, alleged tenant, and there is no opposition by the petitioner with regard to the title of the plaintiff-opposite party, it was always open for the plaintiff to seek a declaration of his title which can be definitely gone into even by way of initial issue for deciding relationship of landlord and tenant. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that earlier also this very amendment was refused, has to be only noticed for its being rejected. The earlier issue was entirely different, inasmuch as, no such prayer for seeking declaration of title was made but now when the plaintiff-opposite party having realized his unsurmountable difficulty posed at the instance of the defendant has chosen to seek relief of declaration of his title that relief cannot be rejected by refusing amendment of the plaint. The impugned order allowing such amendment therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. - 2 - The apprehension of Mr. Chaubey that allowing this amendment in respect of Plot No. 568 will in any way take away his right is again only to be noticed for its being rejected because what has really been now sought by way of declaration of the title to the tenanted premises, and he had definitely right to seek such relief, for getting the decree of eviction against the defendant- petitioner. That being so, this Civil Revision Application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)