IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14700 of 2010 1. PARMESHWAR MAHTO S/O LATE JANGALI MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 2. JHIKALIA DEVI W/O PARMESHWAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. RAM BALI MAHTO S/O LATE RAM JATAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 2. BHAGWAT MAHTO S/O LATE RAM JATAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 3. KISHUNI MAHTO S/O LATE RAM JATAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 4. SIARAM MAHTO S/O LATE RAM JATAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 5. RAMTA MAHTO @ KAMTA MAHTO S/O LATE RAM JATAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 6. GUPAT MAHTO S/O LATE JIAMADAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 7. SOHARAI MAHTO S/O LATE JIAMADAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 8. JAMUNA MAHTO S/O LATE SUBEDAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 9. RAMUNA MAHTO S/O LAT SUBEDAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 10. PEYARI KUER WIDOW OF BUDHAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- GOBARDHANPUR, KANAP PURWARI TOLA, P.O.- KANAP, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ----------- 4/ 24/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2008 of the Munsiff, Daudnagar at Aurangabad in Title Suit No.82/02 rejecting his prayer 2 for amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not assail the second part of the order by which his prayer for addition of parties has been rejected and confines his relief to the earlier part of the order rejecting his prayer for amendment as noticed at page-1 of the impugned order only. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the application to submit that by changing the number of the plot the very nature of the suit changes. This Court finds that the issues have been framed in the suit on 28.8.2007 and the amendment application was filed on 11.6.2008. The suit appears at the initial stage itself. It does not appear that the petitioner has made any prayer for changing any boundaries of the suit lands when he seeks correction of the plot numbers. From the recitals contained in the amendment application it appears that there is a marginal difference in the area of the plots as sought to be amended only. The order dated 29.7.2008 is accordingly set aside. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)