IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1577 of 2008 1. Krishna Mistry, son of Ramashish Mistry 2. Kamdeo Mistry, son of Ramashish Mistry Residents of village- Telaiyadih, P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui. …..Plaintiffs…Respondents…Petitioners. Versus 1. Ram Mistry, S/o late Jaggan Mistry, resident of village- Teliyadih, P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui. ……… .Defendant….Appellant. 2. Sumitra Devi, W/o Ram Kumar Mistry, Village- Manpur, P.S. & P.O. Itown, District- Lakhisarai. …..Defendant…..Respondent. 3. Binda Devi, W/o Ramswarup Mistry, village- Dariyapur, P.S. Kharagpur, District- Lakhisarai. ……..Defendant….Respondent. 4. Smt. Saraswati Devi, W/o Kapil Mistry, D/o late Name Mistry, resident of village- Teliyadih, P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui. ……Defendant…..Respondent. …….Opposite Parties. ----------- 04- 3.11.2011 Heard Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh for the petitioners. The respondents of Title Appeal No.4 of 2006, being the plaintiffs, have filed this civil revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenge the validity of the order dated 28.7.2008, passed by the learned court of District Judge, Jamui, in Title Appeal No.4 of 2006, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs (respondents before the learned court of appeal below) for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. By order dated 17.9.2008, passed in the present proceedings, notices were directed to be issued to the opposite parties herein. They have failed to enter appearance in the present proceedings in spite of valid service of notices. 2 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The suit had been instituted for declaration of title and recovery of possession which was decreed in full. The defendants have preferred the aforesaid Title Appeal No.4 of 2006, which is pending before the learned court of Sessions Judge, Jamui. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners herein (plaintiffs) filed an application for amendment of the plaint in the relief portion by addition of the following words in relief (B): “In view of registered gift deed dated 6.8.1991 executed by Sarswati Devi in favour of Krishna Mistry and others.” The aforesaid application has been rejected on the ground that the proposed amendment is already covered by relief no. (a) which has indeed been adjudicated by the learned trial court. The learned court of appeal below has, therefore, concluded that the proposed amendment is really redundant and not needed. We agree with the view taken in the impugned order. 3. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/