IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.805 of 2007 1. SHUSHILA DEVI D/o late Jogendra Rai, wife of Ram Biswash Rai, resident of village Chotahien, P.O. Raghopur Bhagwanapur, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi, 2. Pano Devi D/o late Rama Dayal Rai, wife of Siaram Rai, village and P.O. Bhadian, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamahri, 3. Lalita Devi W/o lage Jogendra Rai, 4. Dhanpat Rai son of late Ram Dayal Rai, 5. Baidhnath Rai son of Dhanpat Rai, 6. Jagarnath Rai son of DhanpatRai, 7. Methul Rai son of late Jogendra Rai, 8. Ganga Rai son of late Jogendra Rai, 9. Umesh Rai son of Jogendra Rai, 10.Parichhan Rai son of late Ram Dayal Rai, 11.Pawan Devi D/o Late Jogendra Rai, all residents of village Narhakala, P.S. Bajpatti, P.O. Chingitakiya, District Sitamarhi, 12. Depia Devi D/o late Sukhlal Rai Wo Shivpath Yadav, village Bairva Sahaghat, P.S. Madhwapur, District Madhubani, … …Defendants/Petitioners versus 1. Anupiya Devi D/o Shaukhilal Rai, W/o Ram Chander Rai, village Amana, P.S. Majhaura, P.O. Sursand, District Sitamarhi, 2. Sundar Rai W/o Ram Daresh Rai, 3. Rinku Kumari Minor D/o Ram Daresh Rai through her mother through her mother Sundar Rai being guardian, both residents of village Narhakala, P.S. Bajpatti, P.O. Chingitakiya, District Sitamarhi, …Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the O.Ps.: Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate ----------- 2 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and 2 learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3. The defendants-petitioners is aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Sub Judge I, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No. 99 of 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs-opposite parties had neither given the full description of the lands nor had they filed any document to prove as to when and in whose names the disputed lands were acquired in the joint family. It is also stated that on similar ground a petition under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver had already been dismissed vide order as contained in annexure 2 to this application. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the plaintiffs are Parda-nashin ladies and minor son and they have stated that they did not have full knowledge of the joint family properties. They had recently come to know about the other joint family properties and as such, they filed an application with a prayer to allow them to make amendment in the plaint, so that all the properties of the joint family could be made subject of partition in the suit concerned. 3 The trial court has found force in the submission of the plaintiffs and in view of the fact that the suit is for partition, it has held that the suit shall be decided on the basis of the documents and other evidence available on the record at the time of the final hearing of the suit, but the plaintiffs should be allowed to incorporate all the properties in the plaint in the interest of justice subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/-. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)