IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.36 of 2002 UMESH CHANDRA SINGH Versus MISHRI MAHTO & ANR ----------- 13 10/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2001 refusing amendment of the plaint. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when subsequent event had taken place during pendency of the suit, in as much as, the suit land was made subject matter under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tendency Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and the purcha was issued in favour of son of the defendant, who in fact is not party to the suit in question being Title Suit No. 22 of 1998 filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and they were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of plaint, the Court below ought to have not refused such amendment as that would not have changed the nature of suit. Counsel for the petitioner, however, very fairly submits that when such order was passed for issuing purcha in favour of son of the defendant- opposite party, the petitioner had availed remedy of section 21 of the Act, and the Collector of the district having power of superintendence had set aside the order granting purcha in favour of son of the defendant. According to this Court, once the Collector of the district has already exercised power under section 21 of the Act, such order is 2 final and against that even civil suit is not maintainable as is apparent from the wordings of section 18 of the Act which reads as follows:- “18. Order under this Act to be final:- The orders passed under this Act shall be final. Subject to the provisions of section 21, all orders passed by the Colllector in any proceeding under this Act shall be final, and no suit shall lie in any civil court to vary or set aside any such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction. “ In that view of the matter, the status quo ante seems to have been restored in favour of the petitioner and he can effectively contest the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession as subsequent event has already lost its importance on account of order passed under section 21 of the Act. Be that as it may, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in refusing the said amendment. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar