IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.349 of 2006 RAM BHAROSH SAH Versus RAM SUKUL SAH & ANR ----------- 6 16/10/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. This Court on perusal of the plaint as also other materials on record would find that the amendment sought in paragraph 1 of the plaint, was at best only explanatory or clarificatory in nature as with regard to description of plot no. 1290 and therefore the court below ought to have allowed this part of the amendment. The court below, in fact, in the impugned order has made an editorial comment while rejecting prayer of the petitioner and has not examined as to how the amendment sought to be made in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint would change nature of the suit, which in fact still remained a suit for eviction in respect of the same plot which is said to be numbered subsequently in course of revisional survey. 2 This Court, however, on perusal of other amendment sought in paragraph 2 of the plaint would find that such amendment was not permissible in view of the fact that it runs contrary to the earlier stand taken by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the amendment sought in paragraph 2 of the plaint or genealogical table introduced in paragraph 3 of the amendment petition was rightly not allowed. In the result, the impugned order is set aside in part by allowing amendment in paragraph 1 of the plaint, but other amendment sought are hereby rejected. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar