IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.39 of 2008 ABDUL JABBAR, Son of Akbar Mian, resident of Village- Sherpur Shankar Das, Post- Nokha Chak, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. .......(Plaintiff)-Petitioner. Versus 1. Abdul Kalam, Son of Late Akbar Mian. 2. Fatma Bibi, Wife of Late Suleman. 3. Abdul Khair, Son of Md. Suleman. 4. Abdul Hasan S/O Md. Suleman. 5. Md. Kaseem S/O Md. Suleman. 6. Md.Haseem S/O Md. Suleman. Serial Nos. 1 to 6 are residents of Village- Sherpur Shankar Das, Post- Nokha Chak, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. 7. Gulshan Begum, Wife of Abdul Kalam. resident of Mauja-Naihari Sherpur Shankar Das, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. 8. Harendra Sah, Son of Ram Chandra Sah, resident of Village- Sherpur Shankar Das, Post- Nokha Chak, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali. ....(Defendants)-Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Shrinandan Pd. Singh and Ashok Kumar No. 1, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : None. ----------- 3. . 28.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the Plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 14.9.2007 by which the learned Civil Judge- VIII(Sub Judge), Vaishali at Hajipur has rejected his prayer for amendment of the plaint in Partition Suit No. 366 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for partition of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendants-opposite parties. 4. However, later on 04.08.2007, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint for incorporating certain facts in the plaint that on 15.4.1987 all the parties had agreed about jointness of properties and the said paper was signed by all the parties and was lying in the file of the 2 Advocate regarding which the plaintiff-petitioner had no knowledge. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 14.9.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the said order of the learned court below but it is quite apparent that the suit is of the year 2003 i.e., much after coming into force of the amendment in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the trial of the suit had commenced on 26.6.2005 about two years before the filing of application for amendment. It further transpires that the learned court below was quite justified in coming to the conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the case that the plaintiff had failed to show that inspite of due diligence he could not raise the aforesaid matter before commencement of the trial or at the time of filing of the plaint. 6. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)