IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.724 of 2008 Goutam Tiwari son of Late Shiv Prasaad Tiwari, resident of Village Baldiha, Pargana – Goa, Police Station Amnour, District Saran.... Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. Shashi Bhushan Mahto 2. Ravi Bhushan Mahto Both sons of late Asharfi Mahto 3. Poonam Devi 4. Sima Devi 5. Malti Devi All daughters of late Asharfi Mahto 6. Roop Jharia Kwer wife of late Indrashan Mahto 7. Uma Shankar Mahto son of Late Indrashan Mahto 8. Sushila Devi daughter of late Indirashan Mahto 9. Jhari Devi daughter of late Indrashan Mahto 10. Awadhesh Tiwari 11. Lalji Tiwari 12. Gopal Ji Tiwari All sons of late Raja Ram Tiwari 13. Urmali Devi 14. Sunaina Devi 15. Sushila Devi All daughters of late Raja Ram Tiwari .... Defendants 1st Party 16. Rabindra Tiwari son of late Dhanikh Tiwari .... Defendant 2nd party 17. Daya Nand Tiwari son of Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari .... Defendant 3rd party 18. Nagnarayan Tiwari son of late Shiv Prasaad Tiwari ...... Plaintiff All residents of village Baldiha, Pargana –Goa, Police Station Amnour,District Saran ..... Opposite Parties ----------- 03- 21/10/2011 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sinha for the petitioner. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 18.2.2008, passed by the learned Munsif III, Chapra, in Title Suit No.34/94, whereby the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. The plaintiff prayed in the amendment application to incorporate certain Pendente Lite developments in the 2 plaint, namely, the defendants have destroyed some of the items which has caused loss to the tune of Rs.8000/- to the plaintiff. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff (petitioner herein). It appears that the plaintiff had earlier filed identical application for amendment of pleadings on 5.12.2005, which was not pressed for a long time, and was ultimately rejected by order dated 16.7.2007. In the meantime, the suit progressed, the plaintiff examined his witnesses and closed his evidence. The plaintiff thereafter repeated the same application at a stage when the defendants were about to commence their evidence. In such a situation, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. It is obviously a delaying tactics coupled with gross negligence attributable to the plaintiff. 3. This civil revision application is rejected. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )