IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12521 of 2010 1. BINOD PRASAD S/O LATE RAJA RAM PRASAD R/O VILL BELWA TOLA, MAINA TAR, P.S.MAINA TAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. RAVENDRA KISHORE @ GULAB BABU S/O LATE BABA RAM PRASAD R/O VILL MAINA TAND BELWA TOLA, TAPPA RAMGIR PARAGANA MAJHOWA, P.S.MAINA TAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 2. KRIPENDRA KISHORE S/O LATE BABU RAM PRASAD R/O VILL MAINATAND BELWA, P.S.MAINATAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 3. SHAILENDRA KISHORE S/O LATE BABU RAM PRASAD R/O VILL MAINATAND BELWA, P.S.MAINATAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 4. GIRIJA DEVI D/O LATE BABU RAM PRASAD R/O VILL MAINATAND BELWA, P.S.MAINATAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 5. RENUKA DEVI D/O LATE BABU RAM PRASAD R/O VILL MAINATAND BELWA, P.S.MAINATAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 6. RAJU KUMAR S/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 7. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 8. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 9. INDIRA DEVI D/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 10. ASHA DEVI D/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 11. ANITA DEVI D/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 12. LALLA KUMARI D/O CHUMMAN PRASAD R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 13. CHUMMAN PRASAD S/O MOH. CHAND MAHTO R/O SINGARI, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 14. YASHODA DEVI @ DHANRAJI DEVI D/O BADRI MAHTO R/O VILL MAINATAR, P.S.MAINATAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2/ 21/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner as the defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2010 by which the respondent plaintiff’s application under Order-VI, Rule-17 has been allowed. From the impugned order it appears that all that was sought to be brought on record by amendment in the partition suit was the date of death of certain parties. Death is notice by itself. If there is a dispute with regard to the date of death notwithstanding the amendment it remains open for the petitioner to contest 2 the same. The earlier rejection of the amendment application on 19.11.2007 was not on merits, but because it was not supported by an affidavit. The Court finds no reason to interfere. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)