IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8522 of 2011 LALAN DAS & ORS. Versus DASAI DAS & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondents:-Rakesh Kumar No. 1, Advocate. -------------------- 10. 16.05.2011 Heard the parties. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.1.2007 by which the application of the petitioners dated 16.9.2006 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically argued that the order impugned has been passed contrary to the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1971 of 1999 on 28.4.2006. This Court has perused the order passed by this Court on 28th April, 2006. This order has been passed in Civil Revision No. 1971 of 1999 by which the prayer was made to set aside the part of the order passed by the trial Court for which the part of the amendment application of the petitioners were rejected. From perusal of the order it is evident that the revision has been allowed and the order of the trial Court has been set aside. Therefore, from the joint reading of the judgment and prayer made in the revision it is clear that part of the trial Court order by which the part of the 2 amendment application of the petitioners which were rejected has been set aside. After the order passed on 28.4.2006 the trial Court ought to have disposed of the amendment application relating to part of the amendment application which was rejected. For that after the order dated 28.4.2006 petitioners ought to have moved for re- hearing. For that application on the part of the amendment application instead of moving with the application, on 16.9.2006 before the trial Court for amending the plaint as if the amendment of the petitioners have been allowed in the revision. Thus the application itself was misconceived, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is open for the petitioners to move an application before the trial Court for disposal of the part of the amendment application which stands partly disposed of after the order passed by this Court on 28.4.2006. This petition is disposed of finally, however, in so far as the part of the amendment which was allowed earlier by the trial Court shall be permitted, to incorporate the amendment petition. The amendment petition is finally disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)