ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 22 of 1998. which was filed by him for a decree of specific performance of contract with respect to the suit property. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-VII. Patna has allowed the defendant's (opposite party) petition for amendment in the written statement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the amendment petition was not maintainable as new facts were sought to be brought on record changing the entire nature and scope of the suit. He further claims that the proposed amendment was belated as the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed and the evidence of the defendant is also at its fag end. Hence he submits that there was no occasion for allowing the said amendment and the impugned order is illegal and perverse. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the evidence of the parties have not yet been closed and the amendment sought will not change the nature of the suit. Furthermore, mere allowing of amendment does not mean allowing the claim of the defendant and it is only a notice to the other side that the points/facts sought to be introduced by the amendment were going to be taken by the defendant at the time of argument. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. 6. However, if the plaintiff wants a chance of rebuttal to controvert the statements sought to be added by amendment, the learned court below will allow him to do so within a period fixed by the court below.