IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.881 of 2006 1. BALDEO PRASAD son of Late Ganauri Yadav. 2. Smt. Janak Devi wife of Baldeo Prasad. 3. Vijay Kumar son of Baldeo Prasad. 4. Vinod Kumar son of Baldeo Prasad. 5. Yogendra Kumar son of Baldeo Prasad. All are residents of Village Haiderpur, Post-Bhokilapar, P.S. Hilsa, Distt-Nalanda. …………… Defendants/Petitioners. Versus 1. MOST.SARVATI DEVI Wife of late Baleshwar Prasad. 2. Devanti Devi daughter of late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of village-Haiderpur, Post Bhokilapar, P.S.-Hilsa, District-Nalanda. ………… Plaintiffs/opposite parties. ----------- 6 09.04.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. On perusal of the impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error so as to interfere in the same. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners that earlier the plaintiffs-opposite parties had claimed 1/3rd share and now they are claiming almost 1/2 share (45 paise) can hardly be an issue to be opposed by the petitioners so far it relates to the amendment of plaint. As to what share ultimately to which the plaintiffs will be entitled to will depend on the examination of the materials available on record, but then a partition suit will still remain a partition 2 suit and as such a routine amendment as rith regard to share of plaintiffs from 1/3rd to half (45 paise) in the suit property was correctly allowed by the court below. That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)