IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.143 of 2009 1. SHIV NANDAN PASWAN @ SHIV NARAYAN PASWAN 2. Suresh Paswan both sons of late Bhai Lal Paswan, residents of mohalla Lal Darwaza, Police Station Kotwali, Sub-division, Town and District Munger, … …Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners versus 1. Sri Bholi Yadav son of Chhotelal Yadav, 2. Sri Ramji Yadav @ Lukha Yadav son of late Dahu Yadav, 3. Sri Sarwam Yadav, 4. Sri Nand Kishor Yadav, 5. Sri Jugal Yadav, Sons of late Bishun Yadav, 6. Prakash Yadav, 7. Upendra Yadav, 8. Chhotan Yadav, 9. Ganga Yadav, All minor sons of late Rajendra Yadav under the Guardianship of their cousin bother Suraj Yadav, 10.Suraj Yadav, 11.Bhim Yadav, 12.Arjun Yadav, 13.Nakul Yadav, all sons of late Kamal Gope, residents of Lal Darwaja, Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Munger… …Defendants/Respondents/Opposite Parties ----- For the Petitioners: M/s V. Nath, Radha Mohan Pandey and Ashok Kumar, Advocates. ----- 2 03.02.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs- appellants- petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 7.11.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track V, Munger, whereby the petition filed on their behalf under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter to be referred to as “Code”) for certain amendment in the plaint with regard to the name of the father of the plaintiffs petitioners was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid amendment was to the extent that alias name of the father of the petitioners i.e. “Bhai Lal Paswan @ Bhai Lal Dushadh @ - 2 - Bhai Lal Bahailiya” was necessary to be included, where name of the plaintiffs have been described in the plaint. Learned counsel further submits that the title suit was filed by the plaintiffs petitioners before the Munsif Ist, Munger, for declaration of title over plot no. 347 and for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. In that title suit, certain municipal receipts were filed by the plaintiffs, which were brought on record as Exts. 6 series to demonstrate that those lands were mutated in the Municipality concerned in the name of their father. The trial court while dismissing the title suit has recorded findings that all those rent receipts are in the name of Bhai Lal Bahailiya and there is nothing on record to show that the father of the plaintiffs, namely, late Bhai Lal Paswan and Bhai Lal Bahailiya are one and the same, and, thus, it had come to the conclusion that those rent receipts do not support the case of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19th September, 2003 the plaintiffs preferred an appeal bearing M.T.A. No. 31 of 2003, which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track V, Munger. The plaintiffs, who are appellants therein, filed a petition for inclusion of the name of their father in the decree, which was omitted to be stated in the decree passed in the aforesaid title suit and prayer of the petitioners was refused vide order dated 24.05.2008 by the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs petitioners thereafter moved before the trial court for - 3 - correction of the decree under section 152 of the Code. The petitioners also filed the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for amendment in the plaint of the aforesaid title suit before the appellate court. The lower appellate court while considering the petition has stated in the impugned order that the petition was filed four years back and when the matter was posted for final argument the appellants have pressed the aforesaid petition, which apparently is being done to delay the proceeding. It has further been stated in the impugned order that the appellate court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, which may not have been decided by the lower court, and, thus, the amendment will be immaterial and will not be in the ends of justice, and, thus, refused the prayer of the petitioners. In my opinion, the lower appellate court while passing the impugned order dismissing the petition of the appellants petitioners has not committed any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)