IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1514 of 2008 RAMDEO SINGH Versus KAILASH SINGH & ORS ----------- 3 25.09.2008 Heard counsel for the defendant petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in the written statement to say the least is not only cryptic but also perverse. The Court below was required to at least consider the case of both the parties relating to the nature of the amendment, and assign reasons in terms of order-VI Rule 17 C.P.C.. The one line order of the Court below refusing such prayer would infact reveal that the amendment sought in the written statement was not only refused in a casual and cavalier manner but also without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of C.P.C. Infact the cutting made in the impugned order showing that earlier such prayer of the petitioner in amendment of written statement was allowed by the Court below and later on the same was penned down and was replaced by rejecting such prayer would only give an impression that this impugned order was changed with some oblique motive and that too in a questionable manner. There being infact a serious judicial impropriety in the impugned order, as noted above the concerned 4th Munsif, Chapra will also submit an explanation to this court within four weeks as to how such an order was actually passed by - 2 - him. Accordingly, this Court would set aside the impugned order and would direct the Court below to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with law. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)