IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

C.R. No.1970 of 2006

1. Ram Prasad Sah

2. Ram Autar Sah

Both Sons of Sukhdeo Sah

3. Nandu Sah son of Late Bawan Sah

4. Janki Devi daughter of Late Rameshwar Sah

5. Laxman Sah son of Late Jagdeo Sah

6. Binod Sah

7. Suresh Sah

8. Umesh Sah

All sons of Late Ram Chandar Sah

9. Sitaram Sah son of late Bhunilal Sah

10. Most Girija Devi widow of late Prabhus Sah

11. Sanjai Sah

12. Manoj Sah

Both sons of Late Prahus Sah

13. Raj Kumar Sah

14. Batahu Sah

15. Dinesh Sah

All sons of late Ganesh Sah

16. Garibnath Sah son of Late Jawahir Sah

17. Sukhdeo Sah son of Late Mitan Sah

All are resident of Village- Jhapahan, P.S. Ahiyapur,

Anchal- Bochahan, P.O. Jhapahan, District- Muzaffarpur.

. . . . . Defendant 1^st Prties – Petitioners.

Versus

1. Jaddu Sah son of late Bhuran Sah

2. Bhutta Sah son of Khakhuni Sah

3. Jitni Devi widow of late Gulla Sah

4. Pramod Sah

5. Amod Sah

6. Subodh Sah

O.P. No. 4 to 6 are minors son of Late Gulla Sah, they are

under guardianship of their mother Jitni Devi,

All are residents of village- Jhaphan, P.S.- Ahiyapur, P.O.

Jhapahan, Anchal – Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur.

. . . . . Plintiffs- Opposite 1^st parties.

7. Anandi Sah son of late Harihan Sah

8. Ram Briksh Sah

9. Sathu Sah

10. Bhuneshwar Sah

11. Phaguni Sah

All sons of late Mahavir Sah

12. Kusmi Devi daughter of Dasai Sah

All are residents of village- Jhapahan, P.s. Ahiyapur, Anchal

– Bochahan, P.O.-Jhapahan, District- Muzaffarpur.

. . . . . Defendant 2^nd parties- Opposite 2^nd parties.

------------

- 2 -

2/

23.07.2009

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The Defendant 1^st Parties – petitioners are aggrieved by the

order dated 02.09.2006 whereby their prayer for amendment in written

statement has been rejected by the court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that certain

amendments were necessary in the written statements, which are

described in the petition filed for aforesaid purpose as contained in

Annexure-1 to this revision application.

The court below, on consideration of rival submissions,

has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been

closed and thereafter the written statement is sought to be amended

which will definitely take out the advantage as gained by the

plaintiffs, as per the admissions of the defendants and, thus, has

rejected the prayer. Annexure-1, which is a copy of the amendment

petition also does not indicate that despite due diligence, the

defendants could not take steps for such amendment before the

commencement of trial.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional

error in the order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the court below

warranting interference of this court in its discretionary civil

revisional jurisdiction.

As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed.

Uday/

( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )