IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.844 of 2006 GOPAL KRISHNA KHETAN Versus MOST.SUNAINA SHARMA & ORS ----------- 3 07.11.2008 Heard Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties (Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1). In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting amendment in the plaint cannot be sustained for a simple reason that even if such amendment was sought belatedly, the same was not going to affect any party in any manner except that in future the defendant No.6 could have been known by a correct name. The prayer of the petitioner seeking amendment in the description of defendant No.6 originally named as Kewal Kumar for his being now described as Ajay Kumar @ Kunal Kumar, in fact, could have made no difference much less was in any way going to affect the nature of the suit. That apart now the counsel for the petitioner has also tried to remove the scope of confusion by taking a stand that the original name of defendant No. 6, Kewal Kumar as described in the plait may be allowed to remain intact with the alias name as Ajay Kumar @ Kunal - 2 - Kumar. As with regard to the other amendment there can hardly be any objection if the plaintiff has prayed for describing the defendant no. 6 to have become major during the pendency of the suit. This being a most formal amendment could not have been refused even otherwise. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any justification in the reasonings of the Court below and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. Consequently this Civil Revision application is allowed and the Court below is directed to incorporate the amendment in the plaint as sought for and restricted in terms of this order. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)