IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.255 of 2007 1. Satyanarayan Singh 2. Sanjeet Singh Both sons of late Ganga Singh 3. Beyas Devi, widow of late Ganga Singh, all are residents of Village Piproura, P.O. Sikandarpur, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad (Bihar) ……Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Dilip Singh, son of late Keshav Singh, resident of Village Piproura, P.O. Sikandarpur, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad (Bihar) 2. Ashok Singh 3. Ajit Singh 4. Rana Ajay Pratap Singh 5. Kaushal Kishore Singh All 2 to 5 are sons of late Keshav Singh 6. Dilkeshwar Kuer, widow of late Keshav Singh 7. Mintu Kumar 8. Chintu Kumar Both 7 and 8 are sons of Ashok Singh 9. Manish Kumar 10. Dablu Kumar 11. Nitish Kumar All 9 to 11 are sons of Dilip Singh 12. Chunmun Kumar son of Ajit Singh 13. Mukesh Kumar 14. Rakesh Kumar Both 13 and 14 are sons of Rana Ajay Pratap Singh 15. Raushan Kumar 16. Gunjan Kumar Botrh 15 and 16 are sons of Kaushal Kishore Singh All residents of Village Piproura, P.O. Sikandarpur, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad (Bihar) ….Defendants-Opposite Party 2nd Set. 17. Amira Kuer, widow of late Jagdish Singh 18. Vijay Singh 19. Satendra Singh 20. Mahendra Singh 18 to 20 are sons of late Jagdish Singh 21. Savitri Kuer widow of late Sheo Kumar Singh 22. Mukesh Kumar, son of late Sheo Kumar Singh All are residents of Village Piproura, P.O. Sikandarpur, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad (Bihar) Intervenor- Defendants-Opposite Parties. 2 ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s V. Nath and Mrigendra Kumar, Advocates. For Opposite Party 1st Set: M/s Birendra Singh and Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. For remaining Opp. Parties : None ---------- 02/ 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party first party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 18.12.2006, by which learned Munsif, Aurangabad rejected their application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of their plaint only by way of adding some defendants in Title Suit No. 142 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of title and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing their respective written statements and the trial of the suit has started. It is only thereafter that the plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid application for amendment on 11.12.2006. 4. From the averments of the parties as well as from the materials on record including the impugned order, it transpires that some persons, who were sought to be added as defendants by the plaintiffs, had earlier filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for being added as defendants but the said petition was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 07.12.2006 on the ground that since no relief was sought for against them in the 3 plaint, there was no occasion for adding them as parties to the suit. It also transpires that the plaintiffs in their petition had not shown as to what is their grievance against the said persons nor any relief has been sought to be added against the said persons and as such there was no occasion for the learned court below to allow the said amendment petition. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )