IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.298 of 2008 Anu Shukla, wife of Sri Vijay Kumar Shukla, resident of Village-Kanjahachak, P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali ----- Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. (Ka) Shilanath Singh, son of late Parasnath Singh 1. (Kha) Satyendra Kumar Singh, son of late Parasnath Singh 1.(Ga)(i) Bharat Choudhary, son of Hari Narain Choudhary 1.(Ga)(ii) Bibhuti Choudhary, son of Hari Narain Choudhary 1.(Ga)(iii) Anirudha Choudhary, son of Hari Narain Choudhary 1. (Gha) Mithlesh Devi, D/O late Parasnath Singh 1. (Ang) Usha Devi, D/O late Parasnath Singh 2. (1) Most Ashe Devi, wife of late Shambhunath Singh 2.(2)Bimla Devi 2.(3) Anju Devi 2.(4) Sanjana Kumari, D/O late Shambhunath Singh 2.(5) Vikash Kumar 2.(6) Prakash Kumar, son of late Shambhunath Singh 3. (K) Most Urmila Sinha, wife of late Tarkeshwarnath Singh 3.(Kh) Arun Kumar 3. (G) Anil Kumar 3. (Gh) Uday Kumar Singh, son of late Tarkeshwarnath Singh 3. (Ng) Rita Kumari 3.(Ch) Dipa Kumari 3. (Chh) Nisha Kumari, D/O late Tarkeshwarnath Singh, all resident of Mohalla Agarpur, P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali ---- Plaintiffs/Opposite Party Ist party. 4. Indu Devi, wife of Dilip Thakur. 5. Dilip Thakur, son of late Ram Das Thakur, both resident of Attaullahpur Baso Paiya Brahmpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali 6. Bharti Devi, wife of Lalan Pd. Singh 7. Lalan Prasad Singh, son of Binda Singh, both resident of Village Japarabad Tola Bindawan, P.S. & P.O. Lalganj, District- Vaishali 8. Veena Devi, wife of Arun Kumar Singh 2 9. Arun Kumar Singh, son of late Biswanath Singh, both resident of Village Jatipur, P.O. and P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali. 10(1) Ajay Singh, son of late Bishwanath Singh 10.(2) Anil Singh, son of late Bishwanath Singh 10.(3) Sunil Singh, son of late Bishwanath Singh, all of village Noor Nagar @ Jatipur, P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali. 11. Vijay Kumar Shukla, son of late Ramdas Shukla, resident of Khanjahachak, P.S. Lalganj, District-Vaishali. 12. Kamal Kishore Choudhary, son of late Shiv Shankar Choudhary. 13. Ashok Choudhary, son of late Ram Shankar Choudhary 14. Deepak Choudhary, son of late Jai Shankar Choudhary 15. Ram Japi Choudhary, son of late Jagnath Choudhary 16. Badri Narain Choudhary, son of late Jagnath Choudhary 17. Satya Narayan Choudhary, son of late Jagnath Choudhary 18. Manju Jaiswal @ Manju Choudhary, son of late Chandraket Choudhary, wife of Binod Jaiswal, all resident of Village Rewa Basanta, P.S. Sariya, P.O. Basanta, District Muzafarpur at present Mean Mohalla, Calcutta Town, District-Sialdah ---- Defendants/Opposite 2nd Parties. ---------------------------------- 3. 20.10.2011 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the petitioner. One of the defendants is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 14.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge 8th (S.D.), Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Suit No.443 of 1998, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 3 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit was initially filed for declaration of title. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for injunction which was disposed of on the undertaking of the defendants that, in view of the position that they have already made a Pucca construction on the suit land, the injunction application may be disposed of on the basis of the undertaking of the concerned defendant(s) that they shall return the property if the suit is decreed. The plaintiff had challenged the same by preferring C.R. No. 1630 of 1999, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.7.2000, whereby the civil revision application was disposed of in view of the undertaking of the concerned defendant(s). 3. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint praying for the consequential relief of recovery of possession. The same has been allowed by the impugned order. The Proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act provides that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits 4 to do so. Applying this provision of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suit will be hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act if the amendment for consequential relief , namely, recovery of possession in the event the suit is decreed, is not allowed. We are of the view that the learned trial court has passed a lawful order. No ground for interference is made out. 4. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)