IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.593 of 2009 ALI AHMAD, S/O MOHAMMAD SAKUR, R/O HOSPITAL ROAD, P.O. & P.S.-SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. …………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. MOHAMMAD HARUN @ HARUN YUSUF, S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF (DECEASED) R/O DURBAR GULZAR MANZIL, SIWAN, P.O & P.S.-SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ……………PLAINTIFF/O.P. 1ST SET. 2. SAFI AHMAD 3. NABI AHMAD 4. ZAKI AHMAD ALL SONS OF MOHAMMAD YUSUF (DECEASED) R/O HOSPITAL ROAD, P.O. & P.S.-SIWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. …………DEFENDANT NO. 1/O.P. ----------- 2 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant against order dated 13.1.2009 passed by Munsif-Ist, Siwan in Eviction Suit No. 21 of 1986 by which the petition of the defendant for allowing him to make amendment in the written statement has been rejected. From the impugned order, it appears that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and no necessity for the amendment has been pointed out by the defendant before the court below. The court below has found that this is an eviction suit of 1986 and it is a delaying tactics by the defendant. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate in this Court with regard to necessity of the said amendment especially in view of the fact that after amendment in the plaint admittedly defendant was allowed to file additional written statement. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and, therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)