IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.528 of 2007 ----- Nagendra Singh S/o Late Imrit Singh, Resident of Village-Gopalpur, P.O.-Gopalpur, P.S.-Nayagaon, District- Saran. -- Plaintiff- petitioner. Versus 1. Shyam Narain Singh 2. Nem Narain Singh 3. Birendra Kumar Singh Sons of Late Naubat Singh Residents of Village and P.O.- Gopalpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Saran. 4. Jaleshwar Singh S/O Late Naubat Singh Resident of Village and P.O.- Gopalpur, P.S.Nayagaon, District- Saran. At present Head Assistant, Uchaka Gaon Block, At and P.O.- and P.S.-Uchaka Gaon, District-Gopalganj. --Defendants-Opposite Parties 1st Set. 5. Tripti Narain Singh S/o Late Imrit Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.-Gopalpur, P.S. Nayagaon, District- Saran. -- Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Rai with Mr. Navin Nikunj, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 06 08.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 05.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge VII, Saran rejected his prayer for amendment of the plaint in Partition Suit No.46 of 2003 at the stage of final decree. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for partition of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties, namely Schedule-I of the plaint. The said suit was contested by the defendants, but finally the plaintiff’s claim was decreed in full by the - 2 - learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 17.04.2004. 4. It further transpires that thereafter the plaintiff applied for preparation of final decree as per the preliminary decree and two years thereafter on 29.08.2006 he filed an application in the final decree proceeding for amendment of the plaint to correct the areas of Plot No.332 and also to describe the areas of four other plots. The said application was contested by defendant-opposite party no.1 by his rejoinder dated 10.11.2006 and finally the learned court below rejected the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff vide its order dated 05.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the suit was filed after coming into force of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the amendment sought was on the ground of certain facts which had happened much before the filing of the suit. The learned court below has found that no satisfactory reason has been shown by the plaintiff for not correcting the statements in the plaint and not praying for amendment earlier as the property admittedly belonging to the family of the plaintiff, he had clearly the knowledge and information of the said fact. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment raised by the plaintiff. 6. This court does not find any illegality or - 3 - jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)