IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1863 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD SINGH Versus MIRA DEVI & ORS ----------- 4 12/12/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court once this fact was admitted that the amendment sought to be made in the plaint of the partition suit was confined only to adding of particular property which was admittedly a joint family property, there would be no difficulty in holding that the view taken by the court below in allowing amendment in the plaint does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The suit is of the year 2001 and therefore the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with effect from 1.7.2002 also cannot be made applicable for refusal of such routine amendment in the plaint. Mr. Narendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has an apprehension that on account of such amendment the defendants may be required to lead further evidence which would be wholly improper as evidence of the both parties has already been closed and the 2 case is pending at the stage of argument. In the opinion of this Court such apprehension is wholly misconceived because the moment amendment in the plaint is allowed, the same may require filing of additional written statement and may further require leading of evidence. The same cannot be refused as a matter of course unless the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no requirement for leading of further evidence. It has only to be observed that since new property has been sought to be included in the partition suit, whatever plea that has been taken by the petitioner as with regard to the aforementioned suit property, will have to be now made part of the pleadings and therefore the petitioner at the first instance will be required to be given opportunity of filing additional written statement. If upon perusal of the stand taken therein the Court below believes that no further evidence is required, the Court may refuse such prayer of either side for leading of evidence, but then if it finds that the leading of 3 evidence by the parties will be necessary, it may pass an appropriate order to this effect. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar