IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.114 of 2007 Kamal Rai @ Chhathu Rai, Son of Late Gulel Rai, resident of Mohalla – Bagtaj @ Pokhara P.S. Hajipur Town, P.O. Hajipur, District – Vaishali. …. Defendant/petitioner Versus 1. Shrivan Narayan Singh @ Silvar Narayan Singh, S/o Late Gobardhan Singh, resident of village – Sindhiya Kamal P.S. and P.O. Bidupur, District – Vaishali. ….Plaintiff/Opp. Party No. 1 2. Dinesh Rai 3. Chandeshwar Rai Both sons of Late Gulel Rai, resident of Mohalla – Bagtaj @ Pokhara, P.S. Hajipur Town, P.O. Hajipur, District – Vaishali. …..Defendants/ Opp. Parties. For the petitioner : - Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Sujit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : - Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate ----------- 06/ 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 6.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif I, Hajipur rejected his petition for amendment of the written statement filed by Title (Eviction) Suit No. 08 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit had been filed by plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 for eviction of the defendants on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent by the defendants. It is quite apparent that the issues have already been framed as far back as on 30.11.2004 and the evidence on affidavit on behalf of plaintiff’s witnesses have also been filed immediately thereafter, but the learned court below has found that on one pretext or the other the defendants have failed to cross examine those witnesses. - 2 - The learned court below has also found that the defendants are using delaying tactics by way of filing frivolous applications on 9.9.2005 and 20.7.2006 which had already been dismissed and only thereafter the instant petition for amendment of the written statement has been filed for amending some facts with respect to period much before the filing of the suit. The learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant-petitioner has failed to satisfy with respect to any reason, due to which some facts were not stated in the written statement. The learned court below has also found that the defendant had admittedly mentioned the aforesaid facts in their written statement in Title Suit No. 201 of 1982 filed much earlier but he neither mentioned those facts in his written statement in the instant eviction suit nor did he mention the said facts in his earlier amendment petition which has already been dismissed. 4. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below nor there is any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit which is already five years old. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)