IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.658 of 2004 JANKI MANJHI S/O LATE SAMPAT MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE-GOPALPUR, P.S. AUTAR NAGAR, P.O. NARAON, DISTRICT- SARAN……………………………………………………...PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN 3. BACHCHA PANDEY 4. SRI KANT PANDEY 5. SURENDRA PANDEY 6. CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY, ALL SONS OF RAM KRIT PANDEY 7. (a) SHILLA ALIAS SITA DEVI, WIFE OF DEENA NATH PANDEY. 7. (b) RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY. 7. (c) MINTU ALIAS MUKESH KUMAR PANDEY, BOTH ARE SON OF LATE DEENA NATH PANDEY. 7. (d) RANJANA KUMARI ALIAS GURIYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE DEENA NATH PANDEY, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NARAON, POLICE-STATION-AWTAR NAGAR, POST OFFICE-NARAON, DISTRICT- SARAN. 8. TARKESHWAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE JANARDAN PANDEY. 9. (a) DASRATH RAI, SON OF LATE GORAKH RAI, (b) KAMAL DEVI, (c) PUNAM DEVI, (d) MUNNI DEVI, ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE GORAKH RAI, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BARA GOPALPUR, P.O.-NARON, P.S.AWTAR NAGAR, DISTRICT-SARAN. ----------- For the appellants:- Mr. Shashi Shekar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate ---------- 25/ 28-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In spite of notice and appearance made by some of the respondents through Vakalatnama, nobody has appeared on behalf of private respondents. 3. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against order dated 9.4.2004 whereby a learned single 2 Judge of this Court has dismissed writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No.12489 of 2003. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner had applied for mutation over the concerned land in his favour which was allowed by the Circle Officer. Against that order the private respondents preferred appeal before learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Saran at Chhapra, who allowed the appeal by order dated 31.12.1998. The appellant preferred Mutation Revision Case No.41 of 2001 in which he subsequently filed an amendment petition which has been disallowed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra by the order challenged in the writ petition dated 22.08.2003 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 5. In order to appreciate as to whether the amendment will take away any admission etc. made by the appellant, we wanted the appellant to produce before us his application filed for mutation as well as his reply before the appellate court, if any. But the same could not be produced in spite of adjournment 3 given for that purpose. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Deo reported in (2002)2 PLJR (SC)187 . That judgment dealt with order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and the Apex Court took a view that amendment of pleadings should generally be allowed because there is very little chance of failure of justice on account of an amendment but refusal to allow amendment may cause failure of justice. In the present case, the prayer for amendment is not in respect of averments in the mutation application but the amendment sought for is in revision application before revisional authority. That would make a significant difference because at revisional stage the authority has to consider the legality and propriety of the order under revision on the basis of all the materials available on record. Some statements included or omitted in the revisional application cannot make much difference to the parties who are free to raise permissible grounds on the basis of materials on record. 7. Hence, in our view no interference is 4 required in the matter and accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed. 8. However, it is clarified that without being influenced by the prayer for amendment or its refusal, the revisional authority shall consider all the available arguments which may be raised by the appellant/writ petitioner on the basis of materials available on records. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)