IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16190 of 2010 1. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH @ GOPAL JEE @ SHAM KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE HARI KRISHNA SINGH R/O MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 2. NIRAJ KUMAR @ SUSHIL SINGH S/O LATE HARI KRISHNA SINGH R/O MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR Versus 1. BIR BAHADUR SINGH @ SHEO KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUBIR SINGH R/O MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR ----------- 3/ 07/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2009 rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.149/95. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought was nothing more than bringing on record the pleadings in consonance with description of the property as contained in the Schedule of the plaint. But he is unable to satisfy this Court from the amendment application on the record that such an issue was raised before the trial court. The trial court in exercise of its discretion has denied amendment on the ground that it was much belated and after long fourteen years. On the face of the order no error can be found on the reasoning. Merely because a different view in the matter may be possible shall not be sufficient ground for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction. Moreso, when the ground urged before this Court does not appear to have been 2 raised before the trial court which never had the occasion to consider the same. The Court is not satisfied that justice demands that the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 be upset on a ground which was never urged before the trial court and to which it had no occasion to apply its mind. At this stage, leave is sought to withdraw the application. The writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)