IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.168 of 2007 1. Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Sri Krishna Prasad, resident of Mohalla Gulabighat, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. 2. Smt. Ranjana Prasad, wife of Shiv Shankar Prasad, wife of Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of Mohalla Jagat Narayan Road, Jagjivan Gali, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. 3. Smt. Chano Devi, wife of Sri Bardhu Prasad, resident of Balua Chak, District Patna. 4. Smt. Anuradha Devi, wife of Munu Saw, resident of Baluachak, P.S. Gaurichak, District Patna. …Applicants/Petitioners. Versusd Estate of late Subhago Devi, wife of late Janardhan Prasad, Resident of “Subhago Sadan” Jagat Narayan Road, Jagjivan Gali, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. ,,,Opposite Party /Opposite party ----------- . For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None. ----------- 03/ 06.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the applicants- petitioners challenging order dated 19.10.2006, by which learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Patna rejected their petition for amendment of their pleading in Probate Case No. 81A/1998. 3. From the impugned order, it transpires that the said probate case, which was filed in the year 1998, was dismissed on 29.06.2006 and on 25.07.2006 a petition for amendment of their pleading was filed by the applicants along with a petition for review of order dated 29.06.2006. Both the petitions have been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.10.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the said impugned order of the learned court below on 2 the ground that a wrong date was mentioned in the pleadings, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that against the judgment dated 29.06.2006, by which Probate Case No.81A/1998 was dismissed, the petitioners have already filed First Appeal No.11 of 2007, which is pending in this Court. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, there was no occasion at all for the petitioners to file a petition for amendment of the pleading in a case, which has already been dismissed much earlier nor on this basis any order can be reviewed, specially in the circumstances when the final order passed in the case has already been challenged in a first appeal. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to file an application for amendment of their pleadings in the aforesaid first appeal if they so desire and if such an interlocutory application is filed in the said first appeal, it has to be decided in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )