IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1310 of 2008 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH Versus RAMESHWAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 4 09.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order refusing amendment in the plaint for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, cannot be faulted either on fact or in law. It is clear from the reading of the plaint, a copy whereof has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner in course of making of his submission that there was no whispering abut the death of Mostt. Mogia much less a civil death on account of her not returning from the pilgrimage ever since 1981. It therefore, becomes clear that after the plaint was filed in the year, 2000 and the defendants had filed their written statement pressing their rights on the basis of deed of gift executed in the year, 1999, the plaintiff-petitioner realized that in order to get 1/3rd share in the suit he will have to first make some pleadings so that the branch of Saryug Singh goes totally out of picture . For doing this, the plaintiff, petitioner introduced in the case of civil death of Most. Mogia. Apparently, this was aimed to take away an 2 admission already made in the plaint as with regard to the status of Mostt. Mogia, which could not have been withdrawn. This being so, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and the Court below has rightly rejected such prayer for amendment in the plaint of the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner that merely on account of rejection of the amendment in the plaint, it will also not look into other evidence on this point, is also wholly misconceived. The Court below is definitely expected to look into the existing pleadings for deciding the prayer made in the suit. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)