IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.259 of 2007 Premchand Prasad, son of Sri Saryug Prasad, permanent resident of Village Dehlichak, P.S. Chandi, District Nalanda, at present village Mahrail, Eastern Tola, P.S. Andhra Thadhi, District Madhubani. …Plaintiff-Petitioner. -versus- 1. Dineshwar Daredar, son of late Munshi Daredar, resident of village Mahrail, Eastern Tola P.O. Mahrail, P.S. Andhra Thadhi, District Madhubani. … Defendant Ist Party-Opposite Party 1st set. 2. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani, Collectorate Building, Madhubani, P.S. Madhubani Town, Distt. Madhubani. …Defendant 2nd party-Opp. Partyh 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Verma, Sr. Advocate and M/s Ram Naresh Roy, Yogendra Kumar and M. K. Gautam, Advocates For O.P. No.1 : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate. -------- 04/ 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 20.11.2006, by which learned Munsif, Jhanjharpur rejected his petition for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 02 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for a decree of specific performance of contract for sale against defendant no.1-opposite party no.1 with respect to the suit land and confirmation of his possession over the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 4. The suit proceeded, defendant no.1, who was the main contesting party, appeared and filed his written statement, but 2 defendant no.2, namely, the State of Bihar, which was not the main contesting party, although appeared, did not file any written statement nor contested the suit. Thereafter, issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on those issues evidences were led by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 only as defendant no.2-opposite party no.2-State of Bihar did not adduce any evidence, hence evidence of all the parties were closed on 30.08.2006 and the suit was fixed for arguments. 5. It was only thereafter that the plaintiff filed a petition dated 20.09.2006 for amendment of his plaint merely for deleting the name of defendant no.2 from the plaint and also the averments made therein with regard to defendant no.2 only. The said application for amendment was contested by defendant no.1 and after hearing the parties learned court below rejected the said amendment application vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2006, against which the instant civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. I am surprised how the rejection of the plaintiff’s prayer for deletion of the name of defendant no.2 and the statements made with regard to it in the plaint can affect the plaintiff as even according to him no relief has been sought against defendant no.2 ( State of Bihar ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has apprehension that his claim would be affected in view of the proviso to sub-section(2) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 7. In my view, the apprehension of the plaintiff- petitioner is absolutely unfounded as the said provision is with respect to the suit, in which an urgent or immediate relief has been sought against the Government, but here in the instant case even according to the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner, no relief has been claimed against the Government. Furthermore, it is specifically stated on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that defendant no.2 (State of Bihar) was impleaded as an abundant precaution and not for any other purpose. The plaintiff will be at liberty to abandon any claim against defendant no.2 (State of Bihar ) at the time of argument, for commencement of which specific order had already been passed as far back as three years earlier and this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order as such interference would unnecessarily delay further proceeding of the suit. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )