IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.906 of 2008 Surendra Prasad @ Bhola Prasad son of late Maujelal Sah, Resident of village Gaibipur @ Ranjitpur, P.S. and District Sitamarhi… ….Plaintiff/Petitioner versus 1. Vijayandra Prasad son of late Laxmi Prasad, Resident of mohalla Bari Bazar, Town, P.S. and District Madhubani, At present working as Teacher, Madhya Vidyalay Tandaspur, P.S. Bathnaha, P.O. Koily, District Sitamahri, 2. Smt. Meena Devi D/o late Maujilal Sah wife of Shailendra Prasad, resident of village Dumarbana, P.O. and P.S. Pakaridayal, District East Champaran, 3. Shambhu Prasad S/O Ramnath Prasad, resident of village Janapur, P.O. and P.S. Jankpur Dham, District Dhanuka Taraya, Nepal, 4. Smt. Geeta Devi W/O Birendra Prasad Yadava, 5. Smt. Chandra Kala Devi W/O Upendra Yadava, 6. Ram Chandra Prasad Yadava, 7. Chandradeo Prasad Yadava, 8. Indal Prasad Yadava, 9. Nandlal Prasad Yadava, Sons of Jagdish Prasad Yadava, 10.Indrasen Devi W/O Chitranjan Yadava, 11(a) Yadhosa Kumari Minor daughter of Satendra Prasad Yadava, 11(b) Narendra Kumar Minor son of Satendra Prasad Yadava, 11(c) Jai Prakash Kumar Minor son of Satendra Praqsad Yadav under guardianship of their next friend and natural guardian their father Satendra Prasad Yadava, 12. Ram Chandra Yadav S/O Jagdish Rai, 13. Upendra Yadav S/O Dhani Ram Bhagat, all resident of village Ranjeetpur Gote, P.O. Ranjeetpur via Rega, P.S. and District Sitamarhi, 14. Ram Sevak Yadav S/O Deo Nandan Rai, 15. Girish Rai S/o Ram Baran Rai, Both resident of village Ranjeetpur Tola Darbeshi Rai, P.O. Ranjeetpur Via Rega, P.S. and District Sitamarhi.. …Defendants/O.P. Parties Ist Set 16. Ravindra Prasad, 17. Birendra Prasad @ Chhotan Prasad, sons of late Maujialal Sah, 18. Jasodhiya Devi W/O late Devendra Prasad, 19. Kavan Kumar Minor son of late Devendra Praqsad under Guardianship of his next friend and natural guardian his mother Jasodhiya Devi, All resident of village Gaibipur @ Ranjitpur, P.S. and District Sitamarhi.. …Plaintiff/O.P.Parties 2nd Set For the Petitioner: Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Advocate, Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate. … 7 04.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff petitioner is aggrieved by order - 2 - dated 21.02.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge I, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 184 of 1998, whereby he has allowed the petition of the defendant opposite party no. 1 seeking certain amendments in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment was allowed in the year 2008 after about seven years of filing of the written statement, and, as such, there was no reason to allow the same, inasmuch as by the aforesaid amendment the defendant opposite party is trying to change his defence. The defendant opposite party no. 1 by filing the amendment petition has sought amendment in few paragraphs of the written statement, wherein some dates and some words have been sought to be substituted and inserted. The amendment petition aforesaid has been brought on record as annexure 1 to the present civil revision application. The defendant opposite party has averred that due to mistake and inadvertence there were some errors in the written statement, which are sought to be rectified. - 3 - The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the proposed amendment in the written statement by observing in the impugned order that the defendant concerned is not withdrawing any admission and the proposed amendment, in no way, seriously prejudices the plaintiff. Further, even if any contrary stand is sought to be taken in the written statement, the same could be introduced by amending it if it is necessary to determine the controversy in between the parties. It has also observed that the trial is yet to commence. The trial court has allowed the amendment petition subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/- to be deposited in the manner directed in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the order impugned dated 21.2.2008, which warrants interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In the result, the civil revision application is dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)