IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1472 of 2007 MATHURA PRASAD & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 19.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. An application has been filed for substitution of petitioner no.2, who is said to have died on 27.11.2007 leaving behind the heirs and legal representatives as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application. For the reasons mentioned therein, this application is allowed. The name of petitioner no.2 is directed to be deleted and in his place the heirs and legal representatives named in para 2 are directed to be substituted. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court would find that the court below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the plaint has not taken crucial aspect into consideration as to whether by mere addition of a plot number in the prayer portion of the plaint could nature of the suit itself undergo a change? That apart when Hukumnama which is the basis for the suit contains the said 2 plot number 106, any explanation flowing with regard to that plot in increasing or decreasing the area in no view of the matter could have been said to be prejudiced the case of the defendant opposite party but then this Court would not put a final word on the same as even this aspect has not been taken into consideration. The only aspect which appears to have appealed the Court below in rejecting the prayer for amendment in the plaint in fact would not be applicable to the present suit of the year 1998, inasmuch as the embargo imposed on amendment in the plaint has come into force only with effect from 1.7.2002 and is to be made applicable in the suits filed on or after that date. This is the suit of the year 1998 and therefore, at least the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in 2002 could not be made a ground for rejection of the prayer of the amendment in the plaint. All these aspects, therefore, would require reconsideration and this Court, therefore, would set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to consider 3 the prayer of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. This application is allowed to the aforementioned extent. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/