IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.226 of 2008 1. Dhaneshri Devi @ Kunwar, wife of Budhu Bind. 2. Chandrika Bind, Son of Sudhu Bind. 3. Jhimil Bind, Son of Sudhu Bind. 4. Shyam Bihari Bind, Son of Sudhu Bind. 5. Ayodhya Bind, Son of Late Sigan Bind. 6. Dadan Bind, Son of Budhu Bind. 7. Kedar Bind, Son of Budhu Bind. 8. Ramjee Bind, Son of Budhu Bind. 9. Phagu Bind, Son of Budhu Bind. 10. Sita Ram Bind, Son of Bilash Bind. 11. Hiraman Bind, Son of Bilash Bind. 12. Manga Bind, Son of Bilash Bind. 13. Radhey Shyam Bind, Son of Bilash Bind. All Resident of Mauza Rehi, Khairakhonch Tola, P.O. Thanuan, Thana- Shiv Sagar, District- Rohtash. --------- Plaintiff-Petitioners-Petitioners Versus 1. Tapeshri Bind, son of Dharmu Bind. 2. Jageshri Bind, son of Dharmu Bind. 3. Ram Nath Bind, son of Tapeshri Bind. 4. Ghura Bind, son of Tapeshri Bind. 5. Lalit Bind, son of Tapeshri Bind. 6. Rajesh Bind, son of Tapeshri Bind. 7. Surendra Bind, son of Tapeshri Bind. 8. Sudama Bind, son of Jageshri Bind. All Resident of Village-Rehi, Khaira Khonch Tola, P.O. Thanua, P.S. Shiv Sagar, District Rohtash. ----- Defendants-Opposite Party (1st Party) 9. Ramawatar Bind, Son of Shiv Gobind Bind. 10. Baban Bind, Son of Budhu Bind. Both resident of Mauza Rehi, Khaira Khonch Tola, P.O. Thanuan, P.S. Shiva Sagar, Dt. Rohtas. ------ Defendants-Defendants-Opposite Party (2nd Party) ----------- 5 1.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner in the matter of condonation of delay in filing of the civil review application. In order to test the bonafide of such review application, counsel was asked to address on merit of the review application. He has made submission to the extent that the 2 case was earlier heard by learned Single Judge of this Court and therefore, if an order was passed by him for filing of an affidavit, this Court should not have disposed of the matter. He has further submitted that the suit being one for partition, the amendment sought by the plaintiff should have been allowed as it is settled law that the amendment in the plaint, if it does not change the nature of the suit, should be allowed liberally. Unfortunately, none of these grounds can be a good ground for review of the order and this Court has disposed of the civil revision application on merits and counsel has not been able to show any error apparent on the face of record in the said order. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in the application and therefore, it would not be prudent even to condone the delay in filing of the review application. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)