IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.904 of 2007 MOST.MANAKIYA & ANR Versus MOTI LAL PRASAD & ORS ----------- 11 2/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order allowing amendment in the plaint dated 22.2.2007 passed in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 1999. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the suit itself was limited to a relief of eviction, the court below ought to have not allowed the amendment in the plaint to the effect seeking a relief that the sale deed dated 8.8.1928 or judgment in Title Suit No. 6 of 1943 was void and inoperative. Counsel for the petitioners does not deny that such a plea with regard to the defendants-petitioners was taken into written statement and thereafter the plaintiffs- opposite parties had chosen to make an amendment after depositing advolerum court fee. In the opinion of this Court, specially in the light of the judgment in the cases already decided by this Court in the cases of ‘Sheo Sshankar Prasad & ors Vs. Barhan Mistry & ors.’ reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. page 358, ‘Md. Kamruddin Vs. Brijnandan Prasad @ Moti & ors.’ reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. page 49 and ‘Balram Medical Hall Vrs. Rajendra Prasad & ors.’ reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. Page 778, the order directing amendment in the plaint cannot be said to be either affected by material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error. Consequently, there is no merit in this 2 application which is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar