IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.28 of 2017 ====================================================== Chandra Pal Singh @ Chandrapale S/o late Sudama Singh Resident of Village P.O.- Mallehpur, P.S. Barhat, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Krishna Halwai S/o late Narsingh Halwai 2. Jai Prakash Halwai S/o late Narsingh Halwai 3.1. Pinki Devi W/o late Pankaj Kumar Gupta 3.2. Surbhi Kumari 3.3. Khushi Kumari 3.4. Musku Kumari 3.5. Pari Kumari All D/o of late Pankaj Kumar Gupta 3.6. Madhav Kumar S/o late Pankaj Kumar Gupta 4. Doman Raut S/o late Munshi Raut 5.1. Rajiya Devi `W/o late Ramautar Raut 5.2. Mahesh Raut 5.3. Ashok Raut Both are S/o late Ramautar Raut 5.4. Arti Kumari D/o late Ramautar Raut ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pravashankar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 2003 by the Court of learned Munsif, Jamui whereby and whereunder the amendment application dated 15.07.2016 filed on behalf of the petitioner for some amendment in the plaint has Patna High Court C.Misc. No.28 of 2017 dt.04-07-2025 2/3 been rejected. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner very fairly submits that earlier an application dated 02.03.2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment and the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.05.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the earlier application was rejected on technical ground and by way of amendment, petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned trial court, wants to bring some important facts and no relief is with regard to rectification of sale deed in question could be sought apart from correction of boundary. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present petition is barred by res judicata as the previous order dated 10.05.2016 was not challenged and it has attained finality. So on the same ground and for the same amendment, the second amendment petition is not maintainable. 5. I find merit in the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. Res judicata is applicable at different stages of a suit, and for this reason, if the petitioner failed to challenge the order dated 10.05.2016 with same prayer Patna High Court C.Misc. No.28 of 2017 dt.04-07-2025 3/3 and same ground, subsequent amendment application is not maintainable and therefore, the learned trial court has committed no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 and hence the same is affirmed. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. anuradha/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.07.2025 Transmission Date N/A