IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.289 of 2007 Lt. Col.Ramesh Prasad Singh, S/o Late Jagannath Pd.Singh, R/o Vill.& P.O.-Bhandari, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi. …….Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Arun Pd. Singh, S/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh, R/o Vill.& P.O. Bhandari, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi 2. Asha Devi D/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh, W/o Sri Sonelal Singh, R/o Vill.Rohua, P.O.& P.S. Mushari, District Muzaffarpur. 3. Prema Singh D/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh, W/o Late Suresh Pd. Singh,R/o Vill. & P.O. Chochahan, Via-Belsar,District Vaishali. …..Defendant 1st party-Opposite 1st party. 4. Most. Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh, 5. Gyan Bhushan S/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh 6. Amit Bhushan S/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh Nos.4, 5 & 6 are residents of Vill. & P.O. Bhandari, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi. 7. Bibha Mishra, D/o Late Jagannath Pd. Singh, W/o Sri Satyendra Nath Mishra, R/o Vill. & P.O. Kachor ( Marpa Kachor), P.S. Bhutahi, District Sitamarhi. ……..Defendant 2nd Party-Opposite 2nd Party. For the petitioner : M/s B.K. Shukla and Prashant Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 28.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 06.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Sitamarhi allowed the petition of defendant nos.3 to 7 for amendment of their written statement filed in Partition Suit No.63 of 2002. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner mainly for partition of the joint family properties in which unity of title and of possession were claimed. The pleadings of the plaintiff have been 2 contested by the defendants, who had already filed their written statement, whereafter according to learned counsel for the petitioner issues have also been framed but evidence of the parties have not yet started. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that pleadings in the written statement which are sought to be amended have not yet been tested by evidence of the parties and the learned court below after considering the respective claims of the parties came to the conclusion that to avoid multiplicity of the litigation it was proper to allow the amendment sought and hence the amendment petition filed by the defendants was allowed subject to payment of cost. 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. )