IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.475 of 2007 ----- 1. Birendra Kumar Pandey son of Late Ram Bachan Pandey 2. Ramanuj Pandey son of Dharamdeo Pandey 3. Most. Teja Devi wife of Late Ram Chandra Pandey All residents of Village Kusahi, P.S. Rajpur, District-Buxar. -- Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Most. Arti Devi wife of Late Ram Chandra Pandey 2. Mamta Kumar minor daughter of Late Ram Chandra Pandey Through Arti Devi, mother and guardian. Both residents of Village Kusahi, P.S. Rajpur, District-Buxar. -- Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. 3. Kabindra Pandey son of Late Ramayan Pandey. 4. Narendra Pandey son of Late Ram Bachan Pandey. 5. Om Prakash Pandey 6. Prem Prakash Pandey Both sons of Late Sudarshan Pandey All residents of Village-Kusahi, P.S. Rajpur, District-Buxar. -- Defendants-Opposite Parties. ------ For the petitioners : M/s Shahsi Shekhar Dvivedi, Senior Advocate. R.S.Dvivedi, Ranjan Kumar Dubey & Sangeeta Sharma, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 02. 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by some of the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 02.12.2006 by which learned Subordinate Judge-II (Senior Division), Buxar allowed the application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.150 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties no.1 and 2 for partition of the suit properties claiming to be ancestral properties and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit some defendants, including the petitioners, had appeared, whereafter - 2 - the suit was pending for appearance of the other defendants. 4. In the meantime, the plaintiffs-opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed an application on 06.11.2006 for amendment of the plaint giving facts with respect to an earlier Title Suit No.248 of 1976 and also for adding some persons as defendants in the suit. This application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 02.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. The law is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litus and if he wants to add some persons as party defendants for full, final and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties such prayer should not be refused. Furthermore, with regard to statements regarding the earlier title suit is concerned, the defendants, including the petitioners, will have full right to contest the same in their pleadings and evidence. Mere allowing amendment of plaint does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff is allowed. It has to be tested in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. 6. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has specifically found that if the said amendments are allowed, the nature of the suit would not change, rather the facts, which are essential for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties, will come before the court after amendment of the plaint and hence the said application for amendment was fit to be allowed. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned - 3 - court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)