IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.580 of 2009 BISHUNDEO YADAV, S/O LATE MUNSHI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-CHAPARGHAT, P.O.-LATRA, P.S.-GOPALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF. Versus 1. SIKANDAR MISHRA 2. UPENDRA MISHRA BOTH SONS OF GIRO MISHRA 3. RAJESH MISHRA 4. BRAJESH MISHRA BOTH SONS OF SIKANDER MISHRA 5. BINOY MIHSRA, S/O UPENDRA MIHSRA 6. SUMAN MISHRA, S/O SADANAND MISHRA 6(a) GOLAN MIHSRA, S/O SADANAND MISHRA 7. SADANAND MIHSHRA 8. PRABHAKAR MISHRA 9. BACHAN MIHSRA ALL SONS OF BHOLA MISHRA 10. PANKAJ MISHRA, S/O PRABHAKAR MISHRA 11. MANISH MISHRA, S/O BUCHAN MISHRA 12. MOSMAT RENUKA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE SURENDRA MISHRA 13. BIGGAN MISHRA, S/O LATE SURENDRA MISHRA 14. BIMLA DEVO, W/O GANESH MISHRA 15. BILASH MISHRA 16. NAVNEET MISHRA 17. SUNIL MISHRA 18. ANIL MISHRA ALL SONS OF GANESH MISHRA. 19. PRAHLAD MISHRA 20. ARJUN MISHRA 21. SHANKAR MISHRA ALL SONS OF UDIT NARAYAN MISHRA 22. RANJEET MISHRA, S/O PRAHLAD MISHRA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O.-SAIDPUR, P.S.-GOPALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 23. SAVITRI DEVI, W/O SRI PRASAD SINGH. 24. PANNA LAL SINGH, S/O GOVARDHAN SINGH 25. SINGHESHWAR SINGH 26. BISHWANATH SINGH BOTH SONS OF BHAROSI SINGH 27. SARJUG THAKUR, S/O BHOTHARI THAKUR 28. BIJOY KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE YUGAL KISHORE SINGH. 29. NARESH SINGH 30. DILIP SINGH. 31. MITHILESH SINGH 32. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 33. AJAY KUMAR SINGH. ALL SONS OF SRI PRASADI SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAPARGHAT, P.O.-LATRA, P.S.- GOPALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ………………OPPOSITE PARTIES/DEFENDANTS. ----------- 2 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the 2 petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against order dated 19.1.2009 passed by Munsif, Naugachia, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 78 of 2001 by which the amendment application of the plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. The learned court below has found that by this amendment application the plaintiff has sought for making several amendments in the plaint including adding of plot numbers of five new plots in the subject matter of the suit. The court below has found that by adding those new plots the nature of suit will be changed and, therefore, the amendment application has been rejected. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the learned court below and, therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides the said 3 amendment seeking to add five new plots in the subject matter of the suit the other amendments sought for by the plaintiff were formal in nature and apparently necessitated due to typing mistake of the plaint. If that is so the plaintiff will be at liberty to file another application before the court below to allow other amendments except for adding the new plots in the subject matter of the suit. In case such an application is filed by the plaintiff the court below shall consider the same as to whether the other amendments sought for by the plaintiff were formal in nature or not and whether the typing mistakes as pointed out in the pliant were required to be corrected. After examining the matter the court below shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With above observations and directions, this civil revision application is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)