IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2828 of 2004 Khem Kumar Sarogi, son of Late Nagarmal Sarogi, resident of Village-Bagha Bazar, Post Officer and Police Station - Bagha, District-West Champaran. ........................ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sudhir Kumar, Sarawagi, son of Late Nagarmal Sarawagi, Resident of Village-Bagha, Bazar, Post Office and Police Station-Bagha, District-West Champaran. 3. Samir Kumar Minor son of Sudhir Kumar Saragagi, under the guardianship of his natural guardian and father Shri Sudhir Kumar Sarawagi, resident of Village-Bagha Bazar, Post Office and Police Station-Bagha, District-West Champaran. ........................ Respondent 2nd set 4. Dr. Krishna Kumar Sarawagi, son of Shri Khem Kumar Sarawagi. 5. Shyam Kumar Sarawagi, son of Shri Khem Kumar Sarawagi. 6. Govind Prasad Sarawagi, son of Late Nagarmal Sarawagi. 7. Sunil Kumar Sarawagi. 8. Sushil Kumar Sarawagi. 9. Satish Kumar Sarawagi. 10. Subodh Kumar Sarawagi. 11. Gaurav Kumar Sarawagi. 12. Laxuman Kumar Sarawagi. All sons of Govind Prasad Sarawagi. 13. Gopal Prasad Sarawagi, son of Late Nagar Mal Sarawagi. 14. Vijay Kumar Sarawagi, son of Late Nagar Mal Sarawagi. 15. Vishal Kumar Sarawagi. 16. Sonu Kumar Sarawagi. 17. Monu Kumar Sarawagi. All sons of Vijay Kumar Sarawagi. Both Respondents 16 and 17 are minors under the guardianship of the father and natural guardian of the Respondent no. 14. All residents of Village-Bagaha Bazar, Post Office and Police Station-Bagha, District-West Champaran. ................ Respondents3rd set- Respondents ----------- 2. 29.4.2009 Heard counsel for the defendant petitioner and the counsel for the State. In the opinion of this Court the 2 impugned order passed in partition suit no. 30 of 1999 by the Court of Subordinate judge-2, Bagaha, West Champaran giving permission to the plaintiff to sell certain land cannot be said to be either vitiated by any jurisdictional error or even otherwise illegal. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner, in the suit, that plot no. 127 being not part of the plaint and schedule thereof should not have been allowed to be sold by the plaintiff, respondent no.2, has to be only noted for its being rejected. It was wholly a fair action on the part of the plaintiff to seek permission even in respect of plot no. 127 which has earlier omitted in the Schedule and was sought to be made part of the plaint by way of an amendment. It is well settled that adding of a plot by way of amendment in the plaint of partition suit can be allowed at any stage and that by itself would not prejudice any of the party. In that view of the matter, when the defendant petitioner did not even raise this plea in his rejoinder that plot no. 127 is not part and parcel of the joint family 3 property, the approach of the court below in according permission for sale of plot no. 127 as well as prayed by the plaintiff respondent no.2 cannot be said to be vitiated either on fact or in law. Counsel for the defendant petitioner, however, submits that the value of the land of plot no. 127 and its locational importance will really prejudice the defendant petitioner if the impugned order allowing sale of plot no. 127 is also affirmed. In the opinion of this Court the apprehension of the petitioner with regard to being permanently deprived of the value or importance of plot no. 127 is wholly misconceived because any sale which would be effect by the parties during the pendency of partition suit shall always be governed by the final judgment and preliminary decree followed by the final decree. The parties, therefore, will be required to settle their shares even in respect of portion of the land alienated by him in the light of the findings and conclusions arrived in the judgment and preliminary decree. This Court would also find that the 4 defendant petitioner himself having been earlier permitted to sell the land with the permission of the court cannot even otherwise object to sell of land by the plaintiff- respondent no.3. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the court below that the partition suit of the year 1999 should be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order to be sent to Subordinate Judge-2, Bagaha, West Champaran in seisin of parturition suit no. 30 of 1999, for its compliance. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/