IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.284 of 2008 With C.R. No.605 of 2008 ******* In C.R. No.284 of 2008: 1. Babu Lal Yadav, son of Sri Ram Swaroop yadav, resident of Mohalla- Goriyatoli, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. 2. Sadhna Devi, wife of Sri Babu Lal Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Goriayatoli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. ….Defendants….Petitioners. Versus Ran Vijay Yadav, son of late Dayanand Rai, resident of Mohalla- Goriyatoli, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. …Plaintiff….Opposite Party. ----------- In C.R. No.605 of 2008: 1. Babu Lal Yadav, son of Sri Ram Swaroop yadav, resident of Mohalla- Goriyatoli, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. 2. Sadhna Devi, wife of Sri Babu Lal Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Goriayatoli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. ….Defendants….Petitioners. Versus Ran Vijay Yadav, son of late Dayanand Rai, resident of Mohalla- Goriyatoli, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. …Plaintiff….Opposite Party. ----------- 04- 20.10.2011 Heard Mr. S.K. Agrawal for the petitioners, and Mr. Abinash Kumar for the opposite party. The defendants are the petitioners in the two civil revision applications under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are directed against a common order dated 14.1.2008, passed by the 2 learned Subordinate Judge 2nd Court, Patna, in Title Suit No.408 of 2006, whereby two different applications filed by the plaintiff (the opposite party herein), have been allowed. C.R. No.284 of 2008: 2. We shall first take up C.R. No.284 of 2008. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. He filed an application before the learned trial court for amendment of the plaint which has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned trial court has held that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. This is a valid ground to allow amendment of the plaint. We do not find any merit in this application. C.R. No.284 of 2008 is accordingly dismissed. C.R. No.605 of 2008: 3. The plaintiff had filed an application before the learned trial court that one Bhagwat Prasad, one of the leading witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff, may be examined on commission because of his old age. The same has been allowed by another part of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff (opposite party) states at the bar that, before Bhagwat Prasad could be examined on commission, he died on 17.12.2008. Learned 3 counsel for the parties, therefore, submit in one voice that, in view of the Pendente Lite development, the present civil revision application has become infructuous. C.R. No.605 of 2008 is accordingly dismissed, as having become infructuous. 4. C.R. No.284 of 2008 is dismissed. C.R. No.605 of 2008 is dismissed as having become infructuous. Let disposal of the suit be expedited. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/