S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the sole defendant of Title Suit No. 160 of 1970 which was filed by the sole opposite party, namely, the Board, for a decree of possession with respect to the disputed house which according to the plaintiff was wakf board.

2. The defendant petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2004. passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge 8th Patna rejected his petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with sec. 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint by adding some facts in paragraph 9 of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any, amendment in the relief portion and merely wants to bring on record certain facts with respect to the earlier Title Suit No. 37 of 1952 to show that the property was not a Wakf Board.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is merely a ply of the defendant to further delay the disposal of the Title Suit which was filed as far back as in the year 1970, i.e. about 35 years back. He further contends that the