IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.822 of 2006 RAM BARAN YADAV Versus RAJENDAR PRASAD SHARMA & ANR ----------- 4 10.11.2008 Heard counsel for the defendant-petitioner and counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant-petitioner has no business to assail the impugned order inasmuch as the amendment allowed in the plaint at the instance of one of the four plaintiffs does not in any way affect the case of the other plaintiff. In any event such amendment could not have been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the amendment petition filed by one of the plaintiff was not maintainable. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of this Court in the case of Miss K. Masih Vrs Baptist Union of North India (Regd.) reported in 1991(2) PLJR 38 is wholly misconceived in that case the decision inter-se was between plaintiffs and defendants in which there was a finding that initially the plaintiffs filed their suit for common cause of action but subsequently there was an element of asserting personal interest of one of the plaintiff which went against the interest of the other plaintiffs. In that situation when prayer of one of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was rejected and the Lower Appellate Court had affirmed such approach of the Court below, this court had gone to hold in paragraph No.8 thereof that when there were four plaintiffs the amendment of the plaint could 2 not be made at the instance of one of the plaintiffs. This sentence in paragraph no.8 can not be read in isolation. That being so, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)