IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9058 of 2010 1. CHANDRA MOHAN,EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT OF M/S/ NEW SWADESHI SUGAR MILLS, NARKATIAGANJ, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARNA. Versus 1. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 207, KALBADEVI, MUMBAI, 400002 AND ITS SUGAR FACTORY AT HARINAGAR, P.O. HARINAGAR, P.S.- RAMNAGAR,WEST CHAMPARAN THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI HARI PRASAD PANHARIA AND SHRI GOPI KISHAN CHANDAK. 2. SHRI ARINDAM SHAHI, S/O LATE RANVIJAY SHAHI BARGAJWA FARM, P.O. BARGO VIA HARINAGAR, 845103, P.S. RAMNAGAR,DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR,THROUGH COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. ------------ 2. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent no. 1. The Respondent no. 1 is plaintiff in the suit seeking to restrain the petitioner from lifting Sugar cane from lands alleged to have been leased by respondent no. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2010 by which the amendment preferred by respondent no. 1 mentioning the identity of the lands as the subject matter of the lease has been allowed. Learned counsel submits that the lease deed itself does not contain any description with 2 regard to the identity of the land which have been leased. There was thus no occasion for the Court below to permit the amendment by incorporating an identity with regard to the land which does not find mention in the lease deed as it may not be the very lands which were subject matter of the lease. Merely because the claim of the plaintiff that the lands had a particular identity as mentioned in the amendment application, may have been allowed, shall not be conclusive evidence of identity of the lands specially when it finds no reference in the lease deed. If the contesting parties deny the identity of the lands as may have been claimed in the amendment petition, and any relief is sought based on the identity claimed in the amendment petition, naturally the trial Court has first to satisfy itself on a prima facie finding what is the identity of the land which is the subject matter of the suit whereafter only appropriate order in accordance with law can be passed by it. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)