IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1881 of 2006 1. PARAMJEET KAUR, WIFE OF SHRI NARENDRA SINGH. 2. NARENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SARDAR DARSHAN SINGH. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LAL BAZAR, GURUDWARA ROAD, BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………………………………….DEFENDANTS-PETITONERS. Versus RAJAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE KRISHNAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOH. GANJ NO.2, P.O. & P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN………………PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate. For Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Kr. Srivastava, Advocate. ---------- 5. 9.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party. This Civil Revision is directed against the part of the order dated 22.7.2006 by Sub Judge-I, Bettiah in T.S. No.127/03, whereby the amendment in the plaint has been allowed by the trial court subject to the payment of cost of Rs.300/-. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract with regard to the concerned shops. Now, by subsequent amendment, the plaintiff wants to introduce the second agreement for specific performance and, that too, with regard to the entire shops and residential house. Thus, it is submitted that the specific performance of the second contract cannot be allowed in the dispute for specific performance prior to the agreement. - 2 - Learned counsel for opposite party stated that only a subsequent event, during the pendency of the suit, has been sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the plaint. It is submitted that from Annexure-1, which is the Amendment Petition, it is manifest that the amendment sought is only to the extent that Rs.20,000/-, subsequently paid to the petitioners by the opposite party with regard to subsequent agreement between the parties, during the pendency of the suit, may be returned by adjusting the same in the consideration amount after the defendant concerned resiled back from the aforesaid agreement. It is further submitted that it had not been incorporated in the Amendment Petition that the subsequent agreement should be enforced by the trial court. The learned court below after considering the rival submissions of the parties allowed the amendment in the plaint in the interest of justice. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)