IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.62 of 2008 Smt. Chunam Mani, W/o Sri Raghuvans Mani, resident of Pandooi Kothi, Boring Road, PS Buddha Colony,District & Town – Patna ........ Defendant - Petitioner Versus State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur having its head office at Jaipur, represented through its Branch Manager/Officer at Frazer Road, Patna, PS Kotwali, Town & District – Patna ..........Plaintiff – Opposite Party ----------- 07- 18.10.2011 Heard Dr. Anshuman for the petitioner. The defendant of Money Suit no.151 of 2003 has preferred this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the validity of the order dated 4.10.2007, whereby the defendant’s application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice had been issued to the opposite party herein but they have chosen not to appear before us inspite of valid service of notice. The defendant (petitioner before us) filed an application for amendment of the plaint in terms of Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure. The same has been rejected by the impugned order. Law is well settled that it is entirely for the plaintiff to determine the frame of his suit and cannot be amended at the instance of the other side. If the frame of the suit is ultimately found to be 2 deficient, the law shall take its own course to the extent of dismissal of the suit in full or in part. It further appears to us that the defendant by the application for amendment of the plaint is trying to inject her own case into the plaint which is impermissible in law. If the defendant has a separate case, then it is open to her to institute an independent suit in accordance with law. 3. This civil revision application is dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )