IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.387 of 2009 Surendra Kumar Singh @ Surendra Singh, son of Madan Singh, resident of Village – Baruwa, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan ......Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Collector, Siwan 2. The Circle Officer, Raghunathpur, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan .... Defendant /Opposite Parties 1st set 3. Raj Bali Mahto son of Late Sheo Raj Mahto, resident of village –Mahuwa, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan .....Defedant/Opposite Parties 2nd set with C.R. No.425 of 2009 Surendra Kumar Singh @ Surendra Singh, son of Madan Singh, resident of Village – Baruwa, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan ......Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Collector, Siwan 2. The Circle Officer, Raghunathpur, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan .... Defendant /Opposite Parties 1st set 3. Raj Bali Mahto son of Late Sheo Raj Mahto, resident of village –Mahuwa, Post Office and Police Station – Raghunathpur, District –Siwan .....Defedant/Opposite Parties 2nd set ----------- 03- 18/11/2011 Heard Mr. Raghav Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh for opposite party no.3. The plaintiff of Title Suit no.70 of 2005, has preferred Civil Revision no.387 of 2009 under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2008, passed by the learned 2nd Munsif, Siwan. The learned trial court has rejected one application of the plaintiffs for amendment of pleadings, and also another application to implead one Shambhu Nath Singh as defendant. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The 2 present petitioner has instituted the suit for declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no.24 of 1997, is not binding on him. This was followed by the aforesaid two applications. The application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground that the proposed amendment is beyond the frame of the plaint and will change the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment is to the effect that Shambhu Nath Singh has, during the pendency of the suit, encroached a portion of the suit property and is setting up his boundary wall. The application under Order 1, rule 10(2) of the Code has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that in view of rejection of the amendment application, Shambhu Nath Singh becomes an unnecessary party. We agree with the order of the learned trial court. 3. It may be stated for the sake of clarification that Civil Revision no.425 of 2009, is directed against that part of the impugned order whereby the amendment application under Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected, and the analogous Civil Revision no.387 of 2009 is directed against the other part of the order whereby the plaintiff’s application under Order 1, rule 10(2) of the Code has been rejected. 4. We agree with the impugned order of the learned Munsif II, Siwan. These civil revision applications are rejected. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )