IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2238 of 2006 1. BAIJNATH YADAV @ BAIJNATH RAUT, S/O SHANKER RAUT. 2. RAJA RAM YADAV, S/O BAIJNATH YADAV. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-LANGARA PANIYAWAN TOLA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. RAM CHANDRA MAHTO, S/O RAGHUVEER MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LANGARA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………..PLAINTIFF/OPP. PARTY IST SET. 2. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, NARKATIYAGANJ CIRCLE, WEST CHAMPARAN ……………DEFENDANT/OPP. PARTY IIND SET. …………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 5. 28.8.2009. Heard Mr. Vijay Shanker Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 31.8.2006 passed in Title Suit No.148 of 2001 by the Civil Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is apparent from Annexure-2 which is an Amendment Petition filed by the plaintiff that so many points have been sought to be amended including the relief which ought to have been refused by the court concerned. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that the amendments relate to the subsequent event and thus it had allowed the same. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated - 2 - 31.8.2006. This Civil Revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)