IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2033 of 2007 SATISH KUMAR NARAIN SINHA Versus JITENDRA KUMAR NARAIN SINGH ----------- 2. 19.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the plaint. Paragraph 26 of the plaint reads as follows: “26. That the aforesaid one decimal of land east to the plaintiff’s old house and darwaza always remained in possession of the plaintiff since from the life time of his father and grand father, the possession over the land is since much more that 100 years openly, adversely and peacefully to the knowledge of the defendant and his ancestors.” Now the proposed amendment apart from many others seeks a relief for recovery of possession which was never the case of the petitioner in the plaint. As a matter of fact an admission in the plaint with regard to the plaintiff petitioner being possession could not have been allowed to be taken away by taking as contradictory stand 2 by the proposed amendment and that too by seeking an additional relief which would change the very scope and nature of the suit. In that view of the matter, if the court below has rejected such amendment sought for by the plaintiff petitioner that will not amount to jurisdictional error so as to be interfered by this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application thus being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/