IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1250 of 2008 BIRENDRA GIRI & ORS Versus RAJESH GIRI & ORS ----------- 3. 23.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court while amendment in paragraph 4 of the plaint ought to have been allowed in view of the fact that there was definitely suggestion of a deed of gift in the original plaint in respect of which only same date or details were sought to be supplied, the other amendment sought in paragraph 8 could not have been allowed to be incorporated, inasmuch as that could have definitely led to withdrawal of an admission made in the original plaint. From a comparative reading of paragraph 8 of the plaint as it was originally filed and the amendment which has been sought by deleting the entire paragraph 8, it would become clear that the story of partition of the year 1969 is a subsequent event and in fact is sought to be only taken when such admission having been relied in the written statement by the defendants was sought to be further extended by the 2 defendants by saying that no such right to property had accrued on the plaintiffs and in fact the deed of gift was also not valid. That being so, this Court must hold that the amendment in paragraph 8 of the plaint was not permissible and the same has been rightly rejected by the court below. Accordingly, this application is allowed in part and any other amendment except amendment of paragraph 8 of the plaint as prayed for is allowed but the amendment in paragraph 8 of the plaint would stand rejected. With the aforesaid observation/direction the impugned order would stand modified to the extent indicated above and the civil Revision is accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/