JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. The Defendants 1st Party/Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2006 whereby the Munsif, Pupri, Sitamarhi allowed certain amendments in the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is an old suit of 1989 and the plaintiffs on one pretext or the other always want to keep this matter pending. Since this is a dilatory tactics of the plaintiffs, the court below ought to have rejected the prayer of amendment of the plaint. 5. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have brought Title Suit No. 41/89 for declaration that the two sale deeds dated 6.7.1985 executed by the defendant no. 3 in favour of the defendants no. 1 & 2 are coilusive and fraudulent, which are not binding upon the plaintiffs. Second relief is for restraining the defendants 1st party permanently from interfering in the plaintiffs possession. 6. The plaintiffs on 26.6.2006 filed a petition for amendment in the plaint which mainly relates with the allegation that on 1.4.2006 the defendant 1st party had dispossessed the plaintiffs from Schedule-IV lands and had cut away several mango trees from the land in dispute. The plaintiffs wanted to incorporate the subsequent event into the plaint and also to add a new relief mainly for declaration of title of the plaintiffs and recovery of possession from Schedule-IV lands alongwith profits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is all along the case of the defendants-petitioners that they are coming into the possession of the lands. 7. The court below, though had discussed that the plaintiffs all the time try to take steps for delaying the trial of the concerned suit, however, since the cause for proposed amendment was a subsequent event and plaintiffs had claimed that they had been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, thus, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, it had allowed the aforesaid amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. 8. It is manifest from the impugned order itself that the plaintiffs had claimed that they had been dispossessed in the month of April, 2006 and they had filed an amendment petition on 26.6.2006. The defendants were also allowed to file additional written statement, if they so desire, in view of the aforesaid amendment of the plaint. 9. 500/-. 8. It is manifest from the impugned order itself that the plaintiffs had claimed that they had been dispossessed in the month of April, 2006 and they had filed an amendment petition on 26.6.2006. The defendants were also allowed to file additional written statement, if they so desire, in view of the aforesaid amendment of the plaint. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 26.7.2006 warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary civil revisional jurisdiction. 10. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that since the suit concerned is of the year 1989, the trial court shall take every step and measure to assure speedy disposal of the same.