IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.273 of 2007 Md. Ali, son of Late Md. Shafik @ Md. Sharif, resident of village Majhwaliya, P.O. Nagra, P.S. Marhawra, District-Saran. …….. Defendant No.5/Petitioner. Versus 1. Md. Rafik, son of Late Shekh Nurul Haque, resident Of village- Majhwaliya, P.O. Nagra, P.S.Marhawra District- Saran. ………Plaintiff-O.P. No. 1. 2. Amtullah Khatoon, wife of Late Md. Shafik @ Md. Sharif, resident of village-Majhwaliya, P.O. Nagra P.S. Marhawra, District- Saran. 3. Shoyeba Khatoon, daughter of Late Md. Shafik @ Md. Sharif, wife of Md. Amir Hassan, resident of Village- Khanpur, P.S. Maharajganj,District-Siwan. At present residing at village- Majhwaliya, P.O. Nagra, P.S. Marhawra, District-Saran. 4. Najrooj Khatoon, daughter of Late Md. Shafik @ Md. Sharif and wife of Shamsher Ali, resident of Village- Galimapur, P.O. and P.S. Taraiya,District Saran. 5. Majid 6. Amannul 7. Nayamul Son of Md. Shafik @ Md Sharif. 8. Shamsha Khatoon, wife of Isamul Haque O.P.No.5 To 8 are resident of village-Majhwaliya P.O.Nagra, P.S. Mahawra, District-Saran. ……Defendants/Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner :- Shri Vishwanath Pd. Sinha,Sr.Advocate Shri Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate. Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. 2. 10. 07. 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 3. 1. 2007 passed by the learned Munsif Ist, Chapra (Saran) in Partition Suit No. 90/2005 by which he allowed the application filed by the Plaintiff-O.P. No.1 on 16. 1. 2005 for amendment of the plaint 2 with cost. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by Plaintiff-O.P. No. 1 for partition of the suit property with respect to his moity share in the suit and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendants had appeared. 4. It transpires that an application was filed by the Plaintiff-O.P. No. 1 for amendment of the plaint which is detailed in paragraph 6 of the civil revision petition. The said amendment was for adding a plot in the plaint which, according to Plaintiff-O.P.No. 1, was left due to mistake and also for other typographical errors. The said application for amendment was contested by the defendant-petitioner who filed his rejoinder on 29. 12. 2005. The said application for amendment has been allowed by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 3. 1. 2007. 5. From the arguments as well as the averments made it is quite clear that the issues have not yet been framed in the suit and the amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit, rather it would stop multiplicity of the suit and proceedings. Furthermore, since neither issues have been framed nor the trial has started, the defendants would not be adversely affected as they will have ample opportunity to rebutt the said amendment by way of additional pleading and evidence. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this civil 3 revision is dismissed as this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. SKBOSE ( S. N. Hussain)