IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2021 of 2006 SHEOSANKAR MISHRA, Son of Late Lotan Mishra, resident of village paithanpatti, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ….. Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. MUKTINATH MISHRA S/o Late Ramagya Mishra 2. Kedar Mishra S/o Late Ramagya Mishra 3. Nand Kishore Mishra S/o Late Ramagya Mishra 4. Harikant Mishra S/o Late Ramagya Mishra 5. Swarsati Devi W/o Late Braj Kishore Tewari 6. Mohan Chandra Tewari S/o Late Braj Kishore Tewari 7. Mukund Tewari S/o Late Braj Kishore Tewari 8. Nirpandra Tewari S/o Late Braj Kishore Tewari 9. August Muni Tewari S/o Late Braj Kishore Tewari All are resident of village Laxmipur, Tola Bhadharwa P.O.- Bhadharwa, P.S.- Balmiki Nagar District- West Champaran 10. Vindhyachal Singh S/o Babu Kaulashwar Singh, resident of village Bhaisahe P.O.- Bhaisahe, P.S.- Majhaghir District- Gopalganj 11. Ramasare Singh S/o Cander Singh 12. Hirdaya Mishra S/o Mahabir Mishra Both are residents of village Paithanpatti, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ….. Defendants- Opp. Party (Ist Set) 13. Ramchandra Mishra @ Uma Shanker Mishra 14. Rabindra Mishra Both are sons of Late Suchit Mishra, resident of village- Paithanpatti, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ….. Defednant- Opp. Parties (IInd Set) For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rakesh Kr. Srivastava & Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocates ----------- 03 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A. No. 5072 of 2006 has been filed for condoning the delay of 8 days in filing of this civil revision. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 5072 of 2006, same is allowed and delay in filing this civil revision is condoned. I now proceed to consider the civil revision on its merit. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the 2 order dated 3.8.2006 passed by Sub-Judge, IX, Gopalganj in T.S. No. 98 of 2002 whereby his prayer for amendment in the plaint, for declaration that the sada sale deed dated 15.5.1920 is forged and fabricated and in-operative, had been refused by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid sale deed suffers from the vice of fraud and fabrication. The aforesaid amendment was vehemently opposes by defendant and upon hearing the rival submission, the court below had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have earlier filed T.S. No. 234 of 1986 against the father of defendants and the defendants opposite parties have filed the sale deed dated 15.5.1920 in the aforesaid suit. The suit was dismissed, the appeal filed against the aforesaid suit was also dismissed, thereafter second appeal is pending before this court. In view of the above, the trial court held that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to allow the prayer for aforesaid amendment. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order under challenge. The civil revision is thus, dismissed. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)