IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1722 of 2006 1. SUDARSHAN SINGH, 2. Umesh Singh, 3. Janeshwar Singh, 4. Sudama Singh, all are sons of Late Rang Singh and residents of Village – Jokahari, P.O. Mahuli Ghat, P.S. Krishnagarh (Barahara), Distt. Bhojpur……………………….……………………..Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus 1. GIRIJA DEVI, W/o Ram Nath Singh, 2. Ram Nath Singh, S/o Late Ram Kumar Singh, both residents of Village – Jokahari, P.O. Mahuli Ghat, P.S. Krishnagarh (Barahara), Distt. – Bhojpur………………………………...Defendant-Opposite Parties 1st Set, 3. Sidaso Devi, W/o Bir Bahadur Singh, resident of Village & Post – Sahtavar, P.S. Sahatavar, Distt. Balia….Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd Set, 4. Vinod Singh, S/o Bir Bahadur Singh, resident of Village – Dhangavali, Post – Nachap, District – Buxar……..Defendant –Opposite Party 3rd Set, 5. Most. Asbado Kuer, W/o Late Paras Singh, 6. Aej Narain Singh, 7. Hare Ram Singh, 8. Narendra Singh, all (6 to 8) sons of Late Paras Singh, 9. Parbhans Singh, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Singh, 10. Sunar Singh, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Singh, 11. Dhanup Singh, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Singh, all (5 to 11) residents of Village – Jokahari, P.S. Krishnagarh (Barahara), Distt. Bhojpur…………………………..…Defendants – Opposite Parties 4th Set, 12. Brinda Yadav, S/o Sri Govinda Yadav, resident of Village – Padminia, P.O. Mahuli, P.S. Krishnagarh, Dist. Bhojpur, 13. Nakhuna Yadav, S/o Sri Sarju Yadav, and 14. Bir Bahadur Singh, S/o Late Hari Singh, both residents of Village – Padminia, Post-Mahuli, P.S. Krishnagardh, Distt. Bhojpur….Defendants- …………………………………………………….Opposite Parties 5th Set. ------- 3. 14.07.2009. Heard Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. The plaintiffs – petitioners are aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 2.8.2006, passed in Title Suit No. 8/2000 by the Munsif II, Bhojpur, Ara, whereby he had - 2 - rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for allowing certain amendment in the plaint whereas one of the amendments was allowed. The plaintiffs - petitioners by filing a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had made a prayer for amendment in paragraph 2 of the plaint to allow the name of Sonar Singh to be replaced by Sudarshan Singh, which was allowed by the court below. However, the second amendment proposed was to replace the year of death of one Rang Lal Singh, described in the plaint as `1982’ with `1992’. This amendment has not been allowed by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid mistake is obviously a typographical one and, thus, the court below ought to have allowed the prayer. However, learned counsel for the opposite parties contends that it is a clear case of the plaintiffs in their plaint that the aforesaid Rang Lal Singh died in the year 1982 and during the course of examinations of PW1, Janeshwar Singh, who is plaintiff no. 3, and PW2, Dhrub Singh, who is plaintiff no. 8, in paragraphs 3 & 8 of their respective depositions - 3 - that they have admitted the fact that the aforesaid Rang Lal Singh died in the year 1982 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be a typographical error. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the admissions of the plaintiffs during the course of their examination as witnesses, the plaintiffs – petitioners cannot be allowed to make subsequent amendment in the plaint with the purpose to nullify the aforesaid admissions. The court below on due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties has come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed in the interest of justice as the same does not appear to be merely a typographical error and, thus, has rejected the prayer. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 2.8.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )