IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1457 of 2006 STAY NARAYAN BISHWAS @ SATYA NARAYAN BISHWAS Versus JAGDISH PRASAD SAH @ JAGDISH SAH ----------- 2. 21.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners explains that the amendment sought in the plaint which has been refused on the ground of its being vague was actually totally misconstrued by the court in the context such amendment was sought in paragraph 3 of the plaint. He would submit that such use of expression "as per custom prevalent in the area and locality for such transfer" would only mean that the registered sale deed was executed in respect of a sikmi right which otherwise is not permissible to be alienated except as per custom prevalent in the area. In the opinion of this Court the counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct. Infact there was no vagueness in the proposed amendment which at best was only explanatory in nature and in any view of the matter was not capable of changing the nature of the suit. That being so, this Court would 2 allow this civil revision application by setting aside the impugned order and directing the court below to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/