IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10045 of 2011 Madan Singh Versus Satyendra Kumar Sharma @ Pullu ----------- 02. 05.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by Sub Judge IV, Gaya in Title Suit No.137 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff- respondent for amendment of the plaint and also allowed the prayer for dispensing with service of notice on the State of Bihar under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration of title of the suit property. It further appears that the suit property was acquired by the State of Bihar and during the pendency of the suit in spite of objection by the plaintiff-respondent, the entire compensation amount for the suit property was paid to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff- respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint introducing all the subsequent facts making allegation against the State of Bihar and seeking 2 permission to pursue the suit against the State of Bihar after adding the State of Bihar as party-respondent. The learned Court below found that since during the pendency of the suit, the compensation amount has been paid, therefore, it is necessary that the amendment should be allowed and the State of Bihar be added as party-respondent. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)