IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1007 of 2006 NARESH PRASAD Versus LAKSHMAN PRASAD & ORS ----------- 11 17.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. It is one of the settled sacred principle in law that justice is not only to be done but also must appear to have been done. This court would find that normally, in a partition suit amendment of plaint for incorporating certain plots or for that purpose even in the written statement for making certain plots part of the suit can be and should be allowed but the difficulty starts only when such amendment in plaint is allowed despite earlier rejection of the same prayer and that too by adopting a discriminatory approach while allowing such a prayer of the plaintiff and ignoring an exactly similar prayer of the defendant. It is not in doubt that an exactly, similar amendment in the pliant at the instance of the plaintiff-opposite party (Annexure-1) came to be rejected by an order dated 23.11.2005 which was also reiterated in a subsequent by order dated 25.4.2006. It is strange that even when the said order between the parties had become final, an exactly similar prayer for the amendment in the plaint has been allowed by the Court by the impugned order. That is not the end of the matter and infact from the order dated 21.12.2004, it would appear that when the defendant-petitioner wanted inclusion of certain more plots for its being made subject - 2 - matter of the partition suit, by way of amendment in written statement, the same was rejected on the ground that the suit was at the stage of argument and thus such prayer of the defendant-petitioner was belated. As a matter of fact on the same analogy earlier the prayer of amendment in the plaint has also been rejected by on order dated 23.11.2005. Thus the impugned order allowing amendment in plaint could not have been passed by applying varying standards and adopting a separate yardstick for allowing the prayer of plaintiff opposite parties. It is this aspect of the matter which has made the impugned order wholly vulnerable and inflatable unsustainable both on facts and in law specially when no cogent reason whatsoever has been given by the Court below while allowing such a belated prayer for amendment in the plaint which as noted above had been rejected by the order dated 23.11.2005 and had been allowed to become final between the parties. That being so, this Court must hold that a manifest jurisdictional error has been committed by the Court below while passing impugned order and accordingly the same is set aside and accordingly this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)