IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1710 of 2006 1. BAJI LAL MISHR, S/o Late Bikram Mishra, 2. Chuman Mishr, S/o Late Bikrama Mishra, 3. Most. Sushila Devi, W/o Late Hare Ram Mishr, 4. Radha Krishan Mishr, S/o Late Hare Ram Mishr, 5. Supriya Kumari, D/o Late Hare Ram Mishr, 6. Priyanka Kumari, D/o Late Hare Ram Mishr, 7. Sughumita Kumari, D/o Late Hare Ram Mishr, Petitioners No. 1 to 7 are residents of Village Laxmipur, P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Dist. Siwan, present resident of Mauza – Sewtapur, P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. Siwan (Plaintiffs) ………………..….. Petitioners Versus 1. GAYA MISHR, S/o Baban Mishr, 2. Most. Gita Kunwar, W/o Late Radheshyam Mishr, 3. Rinku Kumari (Minor), D/o Late Radheshyam Mishr, C/o Most. Gita Kunwar, Mother and natural guardian, O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of Village Laxmipur, P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. Siwan, present resident of Village – Sewtapur, P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. – Siwan (Defendant 1st Set) …. …………………………………………………Opposite Parties 1st Set, 4. Raghunath Singh, S/o Puja Singh, 5. Laxmi Ojha, S/o Ramjee Ojha, 6. Ram Lagan Sha, S/o Ram Kishun Sah, 7. Ramashraya Panday, S/o Ram Bilas Pandey, 8. Jagarnath Pandey, S/o Puja Pandey, 9. Jawahar Pandey, S/o Dina Nath Pandey, O.P. Nos. 4 to 9 are residents of Village & P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. Siwan, 10. Acchelal Sharma, S/o Late Muneshwar Sharma, 11. Jagdish Sharma, S/o Late Muneshwar Sharma, O.P. Nos. 10 & 11 are residents of Village & P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. Siwan, (Defendant 2nd Set) …………… Opposite Parties 2nd Set, 12. Harendra Bhagat, S/o Ram Dayal Bhagat, 13. Ram Naresh Choudhary, S/o Mahendra Choudhary, 14. Bipin Bihari Singh, S/o Surendra Singh, 15. Raghunath Singh, S/o Puja Singh, O.P. Nos. 12 to 15 are residents of Village Mauza & P.O. Sewtapur, P.S. Mairwa, Pargana – Pachlakh, Dist. Siwan, 16. Smt. Usha Devi, W/o Yogendra Diwedi, R/o Village Sikatiya Bazar, P.O. Khurwasiya, P.S. Bankata, Dist. – Dewariya, Uttar Pradesh, 17. Basudeao Pandey, S/o Hariwansh Narayan Pandey, R/o Village Laxman Chak, P.O. Sarharwa, P.S. Daruli, Distt. Siwan, Presently resident of Mairwa, P.S. & P.O. – Mairwa, Dist. Siwan (Defendant 3rd Set) …. …………………………………………….Opposite parties 3rd Set, and 18. Most. Mewa Kumari, W/o late Ram Chandra Ojha, R/o Village – Patoa, P.O. Guthani, P.S. Guthani, Dist. Siwan, Pargana – Chaubar, (Defendant 4th Set) ………………………… Opposite Parties 4th Set. ----------- 2 3. 07.07.2009. I.A. No. 7524/2008 has been filed for expunging the names of Petitioner No. 1, Baji Lal Mishr and Respondent No. 18, Most. Mewa Kumari, who have died issueless. Let the names of Petitioner No. 1, Baji Lal Mishr and Respondent No. 18, Most Mewa Kumari be expunged from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioners. Aforesaid Interlocutory Application is, thus, allowed. Now I proceed to dispose of this application on merit. Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2006 passed by the 5th Sub Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 308/99 / 271/03 whereby their petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was only one typographical error crept in paragraph 2 of the plaint to the effect that one `Ram Chandra Ojha died in the earthquake of 1934’ was sought to be amended in the 3 plaint. The plaintiffs wanted to replace the same by the words - `Ram Chandra Ojha died after the earthquake of 1934 in the year 1935’. The trial court upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioners as the suit is of the year 1999 and such prayer has been made in the year 2006 when many persons have already been examined as witnesses in the case and this fact has been accepted by the witnesses that said Ram Chandra Ojha died in the year 1934 itself, which is sought to be nullified by the proposed amendment. It has also held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that in spite of due diligence they could not raise this matter before the commencement of trial. Apart from above the plaintiffs – petitioners could not make out a case even before this Court that the proposed amendment is necessary for determination of the issues between the parties. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 14.07.2006 warranting interference by this Court in its civil revisional jurisdictional. 4 As a result, this Civil Revision fails and the same is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )