IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1575 of 2006 SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO Versus MOST.CHHATHIA DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 18.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order refusing to recall an earlier order allowing amendment in the plaint. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to explain as to how the order allowing amendment in the plaint is vitiated by any jurisdictional error. The issue as to whether on that day when such prayer was allowed, the petitioner was present or not upon the transfer of the Court on an earlier date can by itself be not a jurisdictional error so far it relates to allowing of prayer of amendment in the plaint. From the relevant order it appears that the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendants were present on the date and were heard before allowing of such amendment. That apart when from the averments of the amendment proposed in the plaint it is clear that the same in no way is going to change the nature of the suit, the only plea of such amendment being belated also does not appeal to this Court specially when the suit of the year, 2001 is still waiting only for beginning of the hearing by way of leading of evidence. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 2 -