IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.56 of 2007 SRI RAMESHWAR TANTI Versus SRI CHAMAK LAL TANTI & ORS ----------- 02. 01.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 13.12.2006 by which the learned Sub-Judge-II, Muger, allowed the amendment sought by defendants-opposite parties in their written statement in Partition Suit No. 41 of 2003. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants-opposite parties appeared and contested the suit but admitted the jointness of parties with respect to the suit properties. Thereafter, issues were framed, evidences were started and the evidence of the plaintiff was completed and the evidence on behalf of the defendants proceeded. In the meantime, defendants filed a petition for amendment of their written statement by way of adding paragraph 13(A) thereto and raising a fresh claim that there was a previous partition in 1936. The plaintiff-petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground that the said amendment sought was contrary to the earlier claim of the defendants-opposite parties themselves and was also filed at a very belated stage. However, the learned court below allowed the said amendment petition filed by the defendants-opposite parties, by the impugned order. - 2 - It is true that the original claim of the defendants- opposite parties was that the suit properties were joint and in that respect they accepted the claim of the plaintiff but now they have taken stand that there was an earlier partition of the suit properties and hence, there cannot be any partition. The law is well settled in this regard that it is open to the defendants to take even contrary or contradictory stand unless thereby cause of action was not in any manner affected. It is also well settled that amendment of the written statement cannot be considered on the same principle as amendment of the plaint. Furthermore, the suit and the dispute between the parties has to be fully and finally adjudicated for which the amendment appears to be necessary. So far the question of delay is concerned, it is quite apparent that the evidence of the defendants-opposite parties had not been closed nor the argument of the parties had started and hence, if the plaintiff-petitioner wants, the court may allow him to lead evidence on the said point so that the entire matter can be argued and decided. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)