IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.449 of 2007 ---- Luxmi Narayan Prasad son of Late Ramchhavila Rai, resident of village Sursand Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Sursand District-Sitamarhi. -- Plaintiff- Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Nath Prasad 2. Shambhu Prasad sons of Baijnath Prasad 3. Ashok Kumar Gupta 4. Arun Kumar Gupta 5. Prem Kumar Gupta 6. Pankaj Kumar Gupta 7. Munna Gupta Sons of Ram Nath Prasad 8. Pappu Gupta 9. Sonu Gupta, Sons of Shambhu Prasad All resident of village Sursand Bazar P.O. and P.S.Sursand District-Sitamarhi. -- Defendants 1st Party- Opposite Parties 1st Set. 10. Brahmdev Thakur son of Gena Thakur. 11. Jagdish Thakur son of Ramphal Thakur. Both are resident of Village Sursand Bazar P.O. & P.S.Sursand, District-Sitamarhi. -- Defendants 2nd Party- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. 12. Devsundar Devi widow of late Dayal Thakur. 12(k)Rampukar Thakur. 12(kh)Ramsurat Thakur 12(g)Gurkan Thakur Sons of Late Dayali Thakur 12(ch) Daulatiya Devi Daughter of Late Dayali Thakur, wife of Chhuman Thakur. All are resident of village Chandpatti Tole Madanpur P.S. Sursand, District- Sitamahri. -- Defendants 3rd parties- Opposite Parties 3rd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sachidanand Chaudhary No.2, Advocate For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 22.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Sitamarhi rejected his application filed for amendment of his plaint in Eviction Suit No.03 of 1987. - 2 - 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for eviction of the defendants-opposite parties from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement in the year 1989 claiming that neither the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises, nor he was the landlord of the defendants. 4. The said suit is pending for about 22 years and in the meantime issues have been framed, evidence has started and the evidence of the plaintiff is still pending after deposition of 11 witnesses. 5. Only thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff on 12.10.2006 under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint by adding statements of facts as well as relief for declaration of title etc. practically converting the eviction suit into a title suit for deciding the title of the petitioner. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 22.01.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the eviction suit was filed in the year 1987 for eviction of the defendants and in reply written statement was filed by the defendants as far as back in the year 1989 itself denying the title of the plaintiff and claiming their own title over the suit property, but the plaintiff did not file any petition for amendment for about two decades and only - 3 - after his evidence was at the fag end, the aforesaid application for amendment was filed, although in the meantime the plaintiff had already filed a regular title suit bearing T.S.No.70 of 1990 for declaration of his title over the land in suit which is pending before learned Munsif, Sitamarhi. 7. Since a regular title suit for declaration of plaintiff’s title is already pending for decision in a court of law, there was obviously no occasion for the learned court below to allow the eviction suit to be converted into a title suit. Furthermore, the question of title has to be considered in the eviction suit incidentally and the main issue to be decided in an eviction suit is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, if the defendants produce their evidence on pure question of title, the plaintiff will naturally be entitled for its rebuttal. In the said circumstances and after considering the specific provisions of law, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff by the impugned order. 8. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit of 1987 without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)