IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.748 of 2009 SUKAR KUMHAR & ANR … … Petitioners Versus BASUDEO YADAV & ORS … Opp. Parties For the petitioners: Shri Ugranath Mallick For the opp. Parties: Shri Sourendra Pandey ----------- 3. 20.5.2009 Shri Sourendra Pandey, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties acknowledges the receipt of the copy of the present revision petition. Heard both the sides. This revision petition questions the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by Sub- ordinate Judge Ist, Jamui, in T.S. No.22 of 2002 by which the learned Judge refused the prayer of the petitioners to amend the plaint so as to bringing some subsequent events as described in the order. It is not denied that during hearing of the Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2006 learned counsel for the opposite parties had given an undertaking before the learned District Judge of not making any new construction over the land in question. The allegation is that during pendency of the suit the opposite parties erected a boundary 2 wall on Plot No. 1264 in 2007. Consequent upon the above ascertainment of fact the petitioners sought a further relief of amending the area of which was covered by the suit in question by enhancing it from existing 1 decimal to 3 decimals. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. A.K.Modi and others reported in (2006) 4 S.C.C. 385 in which it has been held that the court should also take notice of the subsequent events in order to curtailing the litigation, protecting and safeguarding the rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice. It was contended that it was a necessary amendment which could not have been within the knowledge of the petitioners because it was a subsequent event and the amendment refused by the court below on the arguments which were being heard by it were not legally acceptable. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has resisted the prayer sought for in 3 the present revision petition by submitting that the issues framed by the court have been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and it may appear from perusal of the same that the whole title of the petitioners in respect of the property in question is an issue on account of the deed of transfer in favour of the opposite parties and if the petitioners succeed in getting declaratory relief in respect of the transfer deed then the opposite parties could be out of court. As such, the whole of the relief which is already sought for through the plaint or through the amendment part of the plaint could not be granted to the petitioner. I have perused the issues which are at Annexure-A and I find that there is an issue in respect of the title of the petitioners as also in respect of the validity of the deed in question which is dated 11.4. 2002 in respect of opposite party no.1 and confirmation of right, title and interest over the suit property on that account. Admittedly, there is an issue 4 further as issue no.7 as regards the encroachment allegedly made by the opposite parties over the suit property. I could not have a glance of the original pleadings of the parties but the issues throw some light as to what could be the assertion and counter assertion of facts on behalf of the two sides resulting into framing of the issue in the above behalf. It is true, as per the submission of the petitioners, that opposite party no.1 has breached the undertaking and made some encroachment over the property which could be another necessity, on account of being the subsequent events, of amending the plaint which has to be brought into the notice of the court. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the court below is directed to allow the plaintiffs to incorporate the amendment within the statutory period and proceed to hear the proceeding. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)