IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.695 of 2006 SHAKIL AHMAD Versus JANNATUN NISHAN & ORS ----------- 5. 7.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court even if the petitioner did not participate in hearing on the application seeking amendment in the plaint the court below was required to at least give reasons for allowing such application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint. There is absolute non-application of mind in the impugned order and therefore, counsel for the petitioner is quite justified in making a complaint that as his client, the petitioner was awaiting the result of the civil revision application, the court below was itself required to be more cautious in considering the prayer of amendment in the plaint which in his opinion was at a very belated stage. In view of the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff- opposite parties to oppose the prayer of the 2 petitioner and this Court is not in a position to uphold the cryptic impugned order, the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider the prayer for amendment of the plaintiff- opposite parties after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the Court below to pass a fresh order on the amendment petition dated 25.1.2006 within a period of three months. Any action that may have been taken on the basis of the impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint will, therefore, also remain subject to result of the aforementioned fresh order to be passed by the court below. This application is allowed to the aforementioned extent. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/