Judgment 1. Defendant-petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the 5th Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 324 of 1998 rejecting the prayer for amendment in the written statement, has preferred this application. 2. Defendant No. 1 to 6 filed application for amendment in the written statement. The court below finding that the application for amendment was filed belatedly and new plea is sought to be introduced, rejected the prayer. 3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that amendment in the written statement should be liberally allowed, but the court below had rejected the prayer in a casual manner. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. etc. vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. etc. [2006(5) Supreme Today 943] and in the case of State of A.P. & Ors. vs. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P. [2007(1) BBCJ 59]. 4. Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 5. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. The evidence of the plaintiff had already closed. Thereafter six witnesses have already been examined by the defendants and thereafter defendants had chosen to file application for amendment in the written statement. By way of amendment new plea is also sought to be taken. 7. I am of the opinion that the learned Judge did not err in rejecting the application filed by the defendants for amendment in the written statement taking into account the aforesaid facts.