IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1608 of 2006 SUDARSHAN MISTRI Versus KEDAR SINGH & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate ---------- 8/ 21.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The very case of amalgamation is being denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But when a party like the present petitioner sets up a case of amalgamation, it is necessarily to be between two plots as appears stated by the court in its impugned order. This was never the case of the petitioner. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that it was also not a case of the petitioner that the opposite parties have encroached any part of plot no. 448 and that assumes significance because had there been any encroachment, it would have been brought into the notice of the court as a subsequent event during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner appears imagining things only when the report was submitted by Pleader Commissioner which was adverse to his case set up in his pleadings. The Civil Revision petition contains no merit. It is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)