IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2208 of 2007 MURAT SAH @ MURAT SAHU Versus JAGAT SAHU & ORS ----------- 8 15/10/2008 Heard counsel for the defendant- petitioner on the point of limitation. On the grounds mentioned in the limitation petition (I.A. No. 6150 of 2007), the same is allowed, and the delay in filing this application is condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court is of the view that objection of the petitioner to an amendment in the plaint as allowed by the court on the ground being its being a subsequent event, could not have been even otherwise sustained. The reason for the same is plain and simple, in as much as, the plaintiff, opposite party had filed the suit claiming three reliefs, one being that the sale deed dated 6.8.1999 in favour of the petitioner, defendant second set was collusive, sham and without consideration. The plaintiff, opposite party in that very suit had also claimed that since he had a subsisting agreement for sale (Mahadnama) 2 dated 18.6.2001, defendant first set be directed to complete that part of specific part of contract. It is then the case of the plaintiff that during pendency of the suit the defendant first set on 11.9.2006 had executed sale deed by allegedly performing part of the contract for which the suit was brought and such subsequent event was to be made part of pleading by seeking amendment in the plaint. In such a situation, the plea as being canvassed by Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment to this effect of bringing the whole narration of subsequent event of the sale deed dated 11.9.2006 should not have been allowed is only to be noticed for its being rejected. This civil revision application, in fact is wholly misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar