IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1780 of 2006 BACHI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMANAND RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANIYALPUR, P.S. TEGHARA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI… DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Versus 1. WAKIL PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE SHRI SINGH 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE DASRATH SINGH 3. JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE DASRATH SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF SINHMA, P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI….PLAINTIFFS 4. GANESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHASO RAI 5. MAHESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHASO RAI 6. PAPU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE BHASO RAI 7. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (MINOR), SON OF LATE BHASO RAI, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF BROTHER, GANESH PRASAD SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MOUZA HARPUR, P.S. BARAUNI PARGANA MALKI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI.. DEFENDANTS 2ND SET 8. AKHILESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE TURANTU SINGH 9. RAMASHISH SINGH @ ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE TURANTU SINGH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MOUZA SINHMA, P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI……………….. DEFENDANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 30.03.2009 This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2006 by Subordinate Judge V, Begusrai in Title Suit No.54 of 1989 by which the petition of the defendant filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 13.10.2004 by which the plaintiffs’ amendment application was allowed, has been rejected. After going through the order of the learned court below, it appears that the plaintiffs had sought for adding one Tauzi No.1292 in paragraph 3 - 2 - of the plaint as the same was mentioned in the Schedule but due some reason, as per claim of the plaintiffs, it could not be mentioned in the plaint. The suit is for partition and it is claimed by the defendants that this tauzi is not a joint family property and hence not a subject matter for partition. Obviously, adding one tauzi number does not affect the defence of the defendants and they are always at liberty to claim during hearing of the suit that land of this tauzi does not belong to joint family. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this civil revision application and the application is dismissed. However it appears that the suit is of the year, 1989 and therefore, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and to make all endeavours to decide the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. B.T. (J.N.Singh, J.)