IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.322 of 2009 SAMSUL HAQUE son of late Sk. Habib, resident of Village Dhama Pakar, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj … …Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. Sk. Mumtaj son of late Sk. Mokhtar Ahmad, 2. Sk. Zamil son of late Sk. Mokhtar Ahmad, 3. Sk. Sakil son of late Sk. Mokhtar Ahmad, 4. Noor Jahan, 5. Noorun Nisha, 6. Amrun Nisha, 7. Mehrun Nisha, All daughters of late Sk. Mokhtar Ahmad, 8. Sk. Vakil son of late Sk. Mokhtar Ahmad, 9. Sk. Hoda, 10. Sk. Zulfikar, 11. Sk. Mustafa, All sons of late Sk. Sashid, 12. Satya Narain Singh son of Laloo Singh, 13. Ramesh Singh son of Satya Narain Singh, 14. Sanjay Singh, 15. Vijay Singh, Both sons of Jagarnath Singh, 16. Pratima Devi wife of Ajay Singh, 17. Asha Devi wife of Sambhu Singh, 18. Ahilya Devi wife of Vijay Singh, 19. Ramawati Devi wife of Raj Kishore Singh, All residents of village Dhama Pakar, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Majhagarh, District Gopalganj … …Defendants … Opposite Parties For the Petitioner: Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dineshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate ----------- 4 19.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Defect no. 3 is ignored. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Sub Judge IX, Gopalganj 2 in Title Suit No. 171 of 1997, whereby the prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been refused by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit it could come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the suit bearing Title Suit No. 373 of 1973 was filed and the plaintiff was defendant therein and the suit was disposed of on 14.12.1978 on the basis of compromise. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that compromise decree has been obtained by the otherside by committing fraud upon him, and, thus, the plaintiff- petitioner wanted to challenge the same on the ground of fraud by amending the plaint and adding a relief thereto to that effect. The trial court in the impugned order on due consideration of rival submissions has observed that though the written statement disclosing the aforesaid compromise in Title Suit No. 373 of 1973 was filed by the defendant in the suit on 27.02.2001 itself, however, the amendment petition could firstly be filed by the plaintiff only on 14.06.2004 i.e. after a lapse of three years and the 3 same was dismissed. Thereafter again nothing was done for the subsequent more than three years by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order. On 08.11.2007 another petition for similar relief on similar ground was again filed. The trial court, thus, on observing that the earlier amendment petition having already been rejected, the subsequent one on self same ground could not be allowed, has rejected the prayer for amendment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 22.11.2008. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)