IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1096 of 2006 DEVENDRA RAI @ DEVENDRA PRASAD RAI & ORS. Versus JYOTI RAI & ANR ----------- 4 12.12.2008 Heard Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha the learned counsel for the opposite party. While this Court must uphold the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the plaint for the reasons recorded therein the same in fact has to be also sustained by way of additional reason as has been incorporated in an earlier interparty order of this Court dated 27.6.2005 in Civil Revision No. 1314 of 2004 produced by the counsel for opposite party. From a bare perusal of the order dated 27.6.2005, it would appear that on an earlier occasion when the prayer for amendment of the plaint of the petitioner was rejected, he had moved before this Court in Civil Revision No. 1314 of 2004 and therein, while allowing such prayer of the petitioner, an undertaking of the counsel for the petitioner was recorded that the petitioner will not file any further affidavit for amendment of the plaint. That being so, the petitioner must stand by his own words. Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and this civil revision application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)