IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.188 of 2008 Sudama Devi, wife of Jogendra Yadav resident of Mohalla Puagali, P.O. Chowk, District Patna. ……….Defendant no.1-Petitioner. Versus 1. Deva Nand Sao, son of Late Laxmi Narain Sao. 2. Vishwajeet Kumar, son of Deva Nand Sao. 3. Sandhya Devi, daughter of Late Laxmi Narain Sao and wife of Sri Ram Chandra Sao 4. Baby Devi, daughter of Late Laxmi Narain Sao and wife of Sri Anil Kumar Sah. All residents of Mohalla Puagali, P.O. Chowk, District Patna (Bihar).…Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. 5. Uday Narain Sao, son of Late Laxmi Narain Sao, resident of Mohalla Puagali, P.O. Chowk, District Patna. …Defendant no.2-Opposite party. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1-petitioner challenging order dated 03.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-II, Patna City, allowed the application for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.156 of 2001 filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party 1st set. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party 1st set for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.05.2001 executed by defendant no.2 (opposite party no.5) in favour of defendant no.1 (petitioner) was illegal, invalid, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiffs started in which the 2 plaintiffs produced one witness till now. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only after the commencement of hearing of the suit an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs for adding an alternative relief of direction to defendant no.1 to execute sale deed with regard to the share of defendant no.2 mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.05.2001 in favour of the plaintiffs, which has been allowed by the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 03.11.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below and states that the said order has been passed under the wrong assumption that the vendee of the suit property was the plaintiff, although the fact was just opposite, as it was defendant no.1 (petitioner) who was the vendee and hence the provision of section 4 of the Partition Act was not at all applicable for the sake of the aforesaid amendment. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record and the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the suit is of the year 2001 and hence the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force on 1st day of July, 2002 was not applicable. In the said circumstances, amendment can be sought by the plaintiffs at any stage of the suit. 7. In the instant case, the evidence of the defendant 3 has not yet started and in view of the amendment the defendant will be at liberty to amend her pleadings and produce evidence with respect thereto. Hence, there is no question of any undue loss to the defendant-petitioner. 8. Furthermore, the legality or otherwise of the pleadings either original or brought by amendment has not to be considered at this stage, rather it has to be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit in accordance with the specific provisions of law as well as the pleadings and evidence of the parties. Hence the defendant will be at liberty to raise all objections either factual or legal before the learned trial court at the time of final hearing of the suit either with respect to the original pleadings or the pleadings brought by amendment. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)