JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 7524/2008 has been filed for expunging the names of Petitioner No. 1, Baji Lal Mishra and Respondent No. 18, Most. Mewa Kumari, who have died issueless. 2. Let the names of Petitioner No. 1, Baji Lal Mishr and Respondent No. 18, Most. Mewa Kumari be expunged from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioners. Aforesaid Interlocutory Application is, thus, allowed. 3. Now I proceed to dispose of this application on merit. 4. Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 5. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the 5th Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 308/99/271/03 whereby their petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was only one typographical error crept in paragraph 2 of the plaint to the effect that one Ram Chandra Ojha died in the earthquake of 1934 was sought to be amended in the plaint. The plaintiffs wanted to replace the same by the words-Ram Chandra Ojha died after the earthquake of 1934 in the year 1935. 6. The trial court upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioners as the suit is of the year 1999 and such prayer has been made in the year 2006 when many persons have already been examined as witnesses in the case and this fact has been accepted by the witnesses that said Ram Chandra Ojha died in the year 1934 itself, which is sought to be nullified by the proposed amendment. It has also held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that in spite of due diligence they could not raise this matter before the commencement of trial. Apart from above the plaintiffs-petitioners could not make out a case even before, this Court that the proposed amendment is necessary for determination of the issues between the parties. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 14.7.2006 warranting interference by this Court in its civil revisional jurisdictional. 8. As a result, this Civil Revision fails and the same is dismissed.