IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.878 of 2007 ---- Bhagwan Rai son of Late Ganesh Rai, Resident of Mauja Pancho Dehri, P.O. Doiya Via Kochas Police Station Dinara, District-Rohtas. -Defendant-petitioner. Versus 1. Kashi Nath Rai S/O Sheodhar Rai, Resident of Mauza Pancho Dehri, Police Station Dinara. At present residing at Mohalla Jawahar Tola, Police Station Arrah Nawada, District-Bhojpur. --Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Ramjee Rai son of Sheodhar Rai, Resident of Mauza Pancho Dehri, Police Station Dinara, District- Rohtas. --Defendant-Opposite party 2nd Set. 3. Shanti Devi D/O Shodhar Rai W/o Ganpati Rai, resident of Mauza Pancho Dehri, Police Station Dinara, District- Rohtas. At present residing at Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur. -Defendant-Opposite party 3rd Set. 4. Mohini Devi D/O Sheodhar Rai w/o not known, Resident of Mohalla Gola Mohalla, Police Station Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur. 5. Sushila Devi D/O Sheodhar Rai W/O Ram Shankar Rai, Resident of Narshingpur Dhawani, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District-Rohtas. - - Defendants-Opposite parties 4th Set. 6. Suresh Rai son of Late Rameshwar Rai Resident of Pancho Dehri, Police Station Dinara, District- Rohtas. 7(i) Ram Niwash Rai 7(ii)Dinanath Rai. 7(iii) Satyanarayan Rai. 7(iv) Ramanuj Rai. 7(v) Haridwar Rai. All sons of Ram Bachan Rai, Resident of Village Pancho Dehri, Police Station-Dinara, District-Rohtas. -- Defendants- Opposite Parties 5th Set. 8. Madan Rai son of Late Ram Naresh Rai resident of Village Pancho Dehri, Police Station Dinara, P.O. Dolya Via Kochas, District Rohtas. -- Defendant-Opposite Party 6th Set. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh, Advocate ---- - 2 - 12. 14.09.2009 This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 19.02.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Arrah, rejected his petition for recall of order dated 12.01.2006 by which the amendment sought by the plaintiff in Title Suit No.230 of 1992 was allowed. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for partition of his alleged share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendants, including the petitioner, who filed their respective written statements, whereafter issues were framed and evidence is to start. 4. It is quite apparent that the suit was filed prior to the amendment of 2002 in the Code of Civil Procedure and the hearing of the suit has not yet started. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.02.2007 as well as earlier order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the learned court below do not appear to be illegal or unjustified. 5. The law is very clear in this regard that allowing amendment of pleadings does not mean that the claim of that party is being allowed. The amendment is necessary for full and final adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the defendants will have an ample opportunity to file their additional written statement with respect to the amended plaint only, which must be done within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy - 3 - of this order, and would also be entitled to produce evidence with respect thereto. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- O.P.no.1 submits that he does not want any other amendment as the suit is very old and this is the final amendment and no further amendment is required. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 1992, learned trial court is directed to expedite its hearing. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)