IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2464 of 2007 1. AMARNATH CHOUBEY 2. SARBNATH CHOUBEY 3. PARASNATH CHOUBEY 4. SADANAND CHOUBEY All sons of late Ram Vyash Choubey, resident of village & P.O. Mojan, P.S. Mohania, District – Bhabua, Kaimur. …. Plaintiffs/ Petitioners. Versus 1. JAIVIT CHOUBEY, Son of Badri Choubey 2. ALRA DEVI, Wife of Jaivit Choubey, both resident of village & P.O. Mojan, P.S. Mohania, District – Bhabua, Kaimur. 3. JWALA CHOUBEY 4. MAKHANLAL CHOUBEY 5. SURENDRA KUMAR CHATURBEDI, All Sons of Ramayan Choubey. 6. SHIVANAND CHATURVEDI, Son of Ramayan Choubey 7. BALA CHATURBEDI, Son of Surendra Chaturvedi (minor) through father and guardian Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi. All residents of Village & P.O. Mojan, P.S. Mohania, District – Bhabua, Kaimur. … Defendants/Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : - Mr. Ravishankar Duvedi, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : - Mr. Arasind Nath Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 11.05.2009 Heard both the sides. The petitioners have brought the suit for partition of certain properties as per description in the schedule of the plaint which included particular plots bearing nos. 1182, 1183, 1184/1837 under Khata No. 246 and further plots bearing nos. 1535 and 1536 under Khata No. 248. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the properties were joint between themselves and the defendants. Subsequently the plaintiffs brought a petition - 2 - making statement that the above properties were their personally acquired property which were in exclusive possession of them and defendants have no title and interest along with plaintiffs in respect thereof and certainly the same be not subjected to the decree for partition. Objection was taken by the defendants to the above prayer of amendment by citing AIR 1998 SC 618 Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and others on the ground that once made single statements on admission of certain facts then it was too late of them to have reflected those admissions so as to completely changing the facts scenario of the case. The learned trial Court, i.e., Subordinate Judge, I, Bhabua, Kaimur accepted the contention of the defendants in the light of the above decision of Heeralal and refused to allow the amendment sought by the petitioners. I have perused the decision of the Supreme Court stated above and I have also perused the statements made by the petitioners in their plaint and their prayer for amendment by which they want to take out the properties from the subject matter of the suit which was for partition by making the statement that it was their exclusively personally - 3 - purchased property. This fact clearly indicate as to what extent the petitioners want to change the facts situation of the case and how they want to jump their admission which they earlier made. They cannot be allowed to do so in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court noted above. The order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, I appears perfectly justified within four corners of law and this revision petition appears meritless. The same is dismissed but without any order of cost. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)