IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2174 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR SINGH Versus KHATI JAN KHATOON & ORS ----------- 3. 16.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court whether the proposed amendment was barred by limitation would have been gone into only in the light of evidence on record. For the present the court below had to only examine if there were subsequent event necessitating amendment in plaint. From perusal of the amendment application it appears that such amendment were necessarily explanatory in nature and as such the court below ought to have considered this aspect and allowed them. Unfortunately the concept of subsequent event has been totally obliterated in the back drop of plea of limitation which alone has weighed upon by the court below in rejecting the prayer of amendment in the plaint. This Court, therefore, would set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the court below to reconsider the whole issue afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that in 2 case the amendment is allowed incorporating the event of the years 1995, 1996, 1997 as sought to be incorporated, the delay in filing of the amendment by the plaintiff-petitioner must be compensated by them by making payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the contesting defendant- opposite parties. With the aforementioned observation/ direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/