Civil Revision No.1375 of 1992 *** 1. Smt. Tapreshwari Devi W/o Sheo Pujan Singh (alive) D/o Late Gaya Singh. 2. Smt. Bhageshwari Devi W/o Sheo Narain Singh D/o Late Gaya Singh, all of village Charihara, P.S. Mashrak , District Saran (Bihar). 3. Sheo Pujan Singh son of Ram Jatan Singh, resident of village Charihara, P.O. and P.S. Mashrak, District-Saran. ………….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners. Versus 1(i) Shiv Kumari 1(ii) Ashok Kumar Singh 1(iii) Arun Kumar Singh 1(iv) Mantu Kumar Singh 1(v) Smt. Manju Devi W/o Kamlesh Singh, village Mani Sirsia, Marhaura, Chapra 1(vi) Smt. Reena Devi W/o Sri Arvind Singh, village Madhopur, P.O. Anori Bajar, Garkha, Chapra. Opposite Party no.1(i) wife of deceased Bhulan Singh and 1(ii) to 1(iv) sons and 1(v) to 1(vi) are daughters of deceased Opposite Party No.1. 2. Bishwanath Singh son of Late Shri Nath Singh, all residents of village Nandanpur, P.O. Gawandari, P.S. Taraiya, District- Saran, Bihar. ……................................... Defendants-Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : M/s S.N. Ray, Sr. Advocate, D.K. Singh and Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocates. For the opposite parties : M/s S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate and R.S.Dwivedi, Advocate. *** P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN S.N. Hussain, J. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-petitioners along with one Shoe Pujan Singh, who was not a party in the learned court below challenging order dated 15.07.1992 by which the learned Additional District Judge- III, Chapra dropped the proceeding of Misc. Case No.01 of 1992 due to the pendency of S.A. No. 603 of 1991 in this High Court. 2. This matter arises out of Title Suit No.153 of 1972, which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that all the four deeds of gift dated 20.03.1972 (Ext.G series) said to have been executed by Late Gaya Singh (father of the plaintiffs) in favour of the defendants with respect to the suit properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint were illegal, inoperative, without jurisdiction, null and void and also for confirmation of possession or alternatively recovery of possession, etc. 2 3. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge-VI, Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.1979 against which the defendants filed Title Appeal No.101 of 1979. 4. During the pendency of the title appeal respondent no.1 Most. Deoti Kuer who was plaintiff no.1 in the title suit died on 13.07.1981 and hence the defendants-appellants filed an application in the title appeal for expunging her name but one Sheo Pujan Singh appeared in the title appeal claiming that the said Most. Deoti Kuer had transferred the land in question to him by virtue of a deed of gift dated 05.03.1981 and hence he is now the owner of the property in place of his mother-in-law Most. Deoti Kuer (donor). The said application of Sheo Pujan Singh was allowed by the learned court of appeal below vide order dated 29.04.1983 but no correction was made by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal. In the said circumstances on 10.09.1991 the title appeal was finally heard and disposed of vide order 19.09.1991 without the impleadment of the aforesaid Sheo Pujan Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 03.09.1991 the learned court of appeal below also allowed the prayer of plaintiffs- respondents for amendment in the plaint with regard to the number and boundary of different plots, out of the suit land according to the impugned deeds of gift (Ext.G series) given to the defendants, but the said amendment was also not incorporated in the plaint and title appeal was dismissed on 19.09.1991 without the said amendment. 6. It is also stated that in the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiffs- respondents filed Misc.Case No.01 of 1992 under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time for incorporation of amendment in the plaint as per order dated 03.09.1991 and also for amending the decree of the lower appellate court according to the substitution of the donee which was allowed by the learned court of appeal below. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that against the judgment and decree of the title appeal the defendants-appellants filed S.A. No.603 of 1991 and hence only due to the pendency of second appeal the learned lower appellate court dropped the proceeding of Misc.Case No.01 of 1992 by its impugned order dated 15.07.1992. 3 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also avers that according to Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 14 days time was available for incorporating the amendment as per order dated 03.09.1991 but on 10.09.1991 arguments were closed, judgment was reserved and file went to the Presiding Officer, who passed his judgment on 19.09.1991 and in the meantime 14 days time expired hence petitioners had no option left but to file the miscellaneous case for extension of time. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that Misc.Case No.01 of 1992 was only with respect to order dated 29.04.1983 as mention of cost is also there but it does not contain any mention of order dated 03.09.1991 as would be clear from the impugned order dated 15.07.1992. He also stated that the petition for substitution of Sheo Pujan Singh in place of respondent no.1 dated 17.08.1981 was filed by the respondents and not by the appellants and hence when the mistake was realised on 29.04.1983, cost was levied by the court. It is also stated that no substitution was made in the memorandum of title appeal as per the order of substitution hence deceased respondent no.1 continued in the decree of the lower appellate court without including Sheo Pujan Singh, thus Misc. Case No.01 of 1992 was filed by the respondents after the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. It is also stated that in the miscellaneous case no whisper was made about the incorporation of amendment in the plaint and the said petition was confined only to the matter of substitution of Sheo Pujan Singh in place of Most. Deoti Kuer and till date no petition has been filed by the petitioners for extension of time for amendment except the instant civil revision. 10. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court of appeal below, it is quite apparent that the question of substitution is not at all important in the context of the instant case as well as in respect of the case before the learned court of appeal below, hence the main question is with regard to the amendment of plaint. It is not in dispute that a petition for amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the learned court of appeal below, which was allowed on 03.09.1991. The provision of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure also provides 14 days 4 time for incorporating such amendment but before the expiry of the said period of 14 days, the title appeal was finally heard on 10.09.1991 by the learned lower appellate court and the judgment was reserved, whereafter the said title appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.1991. 11. In the said circumstances, the petitioners and their counsel had sufficient time to incorporate the amendment sought by them, which had been allowed by the learned court of appeal below but they did not do the same nor they tried to make any submission in that regard before the learned court of appeal below when the title appeal was finally being heard on 10.09.1991 as is apparent from the record of the case. Furthermore, Misc. Case No.01 of 1992 as well as the petition under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 20.05.1992 by the petitioners much belatedly after about eight months of the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below and no reason for such inordinate delay had been stated. Thus there was no occasion for the learned court below to allow the miscellaneous case as it was absolutely frivolous, baseless and had to be rejected. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. Patna High Court, (S.N. Hussain, J.) Dated, the 25th March, 2009 N.A.F.R./harish