IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16190 of 2010
1. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH @ GOPAL JEE @ SHAM KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE
HARI KRISHNA SINGH R/O MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN,
DISTT.- BHOJPUR
2. NIRAJ KUMAR @ SUSHIL SINGH S/O LATE HARI KRISHNA SINGH R/O
MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
Versus
1. BIR BAHADUR SINGH @ SHEO KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUBIR SINGH
R/O MOHALLA- BEGAMPUR, P.S.- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
-----------
3/ 07/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner plaintiff is aggrieved by the
order dated 19.8.2009 rejecting the prayer for
amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.149/95.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the amendment sought was nothing more than
bringing on record the pleadings in consonance with
description of the property as contained in the Schedule
of the plaint. But he is unable to satisfy this Court from
the amendment application on the record that such an
issue was raised before the trial court.
The trial court in exercise of its discretion has
denied amendment on the ground that it was much
belated and after long fourteen years. On the face of the
order no error can be found on the reasoning. Merely
because a different view in the matter may be possible
shall not be sufficient ground for interference in the
supervisory jurisdiction. Moreso, when the ground
urged before this Court does not appear to have been
2
raised before the trial court which never had the
occasion to consider the same. The Court is not
satisfied that justice demands that the impugned order
dated 19.8.2009 be upset on a ground which was never
urged before the trial court and to which it had no
occasion to apply its mind.
At this stage, leave is sought to withdraw the
application.
The writ application is dismissed as
withdrawn.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)