IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14045 of 2010 1. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE KAILASH PATI YADAV R/O VILL.- SULTANGANJ, SIDHI GHAT, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. SHEOGOPAL SAHU S/O LATE RAMCHARITAR SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 2. SUNIL SAHU S/O LATE RAMCHARITAR SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 3. SANKAR SAHU S/O LATE RAMCHARITAR SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 4. NARESH SAHU S/O LATE RAMCHARITAR SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 5. SMT. PRAMESHWARI DEVI W/O RAM CHARITRA SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 6. RAMDULARI DEVI D/O LATE RAMCHARITRA SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 7. VEENA KUMARI D/O LATE RAMCHARITRA SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 8. PAPPI KUMARI D/O LATE RAMCHARITRA SAHU @ KAILU SAHU R/O VILL.- PARIA BARIARPUR, P.O. BARIARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 9. SITA RAM SARAWAGE S/O BAIJNATH MARBARI R/O VILL.- BARIYARPUR PARIA, P.O.- BARIYARPUR, P.S. MUFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER 10. BIRENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O LATE HIRALAL SARAOGI R/O VILL.- BARIYARPUR PARIA, P.O.- BARIYARPUR, P.S. MUFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- 2/ 24/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.2010 passed by Munsiff 1st at Munger in Title Suit No.17/91 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. The impugned order holds that the amendment sought was earlier allowed, but set aside by the Supreme Court in its entirety. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 the amendments sought were trivial in nature. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1700/07 at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 makes it explicit that it was the entire amendment rejected and not any portion of the same. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)