IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.473 of 2007 ---- Jay Krishna Bhindwar, son of Late Mintri Bhindwar, Resident of Village/Mauje- Sugapatti, Post Office-Sugapatti, Police Station-Phulparas, District-Madhubani. --Defendant no.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Bal Krishna Bhindwar 2. Sunil Kumar Bhindwar Both Nos.1 and 2 are sons of Late Mintri Bhindwar, Resident of Village-Mauje Sugapatti, P.O. Sugapatti, P.S. Phulparas, District-Madhubani. -- Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 1st Set. 3. Deo Kirshna Bhindwar, son of Late Mintri Bhindwar, resident of Village- Mauje- Sugapatti, P.O. Sugapatti, Police Station-Phulparas, District-Madhubani. At present residing at Mauje-Gahuma Beriya, Tola Balabakhar, P.O. Gehuma Beriya, Police Station –Phulparas District- Madhubani. -- Defendant no.1- Opposite party 2nd Set. 4. Gautam Krishna son of Jai Krishna Bhindwar, Resident of Village-Mauje-Sugapatti, Post office Sugapatti, Police Station-Phulparas, District-Madhubani. -- Defendant no.3-Opposite Party 3rd Set. 5. Lalita Devi, wife of Ravindra Kumar Goit. 6. Rajnish Kumar Goit. 7. Prem Chandra Goit. Both Nos. 6 & 7 are minor sons of Ravindra Kumar Goit Under guardianship of their mother Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of Ravindra Kumar Goit. All Nos. 5 to 7 are residents of Village/Mauje Bharhar-Siswar, Tola Berbana Police Station- Khutauna, District-Madhubani. Presently residing at Mauja- Gehuma Beriya, Tola-Balabakhar, P.O. Gehuma Beriya, Police Station-Phulparas, District- Madhubani. -- Defendants no.4 to 6-Opposite Parties 4th Set. ---- For the petitioner : M/s. Prabhas Ranjan & Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocates. For opposite party no.3 : Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Senior Advocate M/s Dr.Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam & Yogendra Kumar, Advocate. ----- 03. 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.3. - 2 - This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2- petitioner challenging order dated 02.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Jhanjharpur allowed the application of defendant no.1 (opposite party no.3) for amendment of his written statement filed in Partition Suit No.21 of 2005. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties no.1 and 2 for partition of their 1/3rd share in the suit property and also for declaration that the deeds of gift dated 21.03.2005, 22.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no. 4 to 6 were void, ab initio and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendants appeared and filed their respective written statements, but the issues have not yet been framed. It further transpires that defendant no.1 (Opposite party no.3) filed an application dated 05.04.2006 for amending his written statement which was objected to only by the plaintiffs (opposite parties no.1 and 2) and defendant no.2 (petitioner). However, the said application for amendment was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 02.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the objection to the amendment was raised on the ground that defendant no.1 was intending to include other lands which have been acquired recently after separation among the co- - 3 - sharers and it would be complete turn around in the claim of defendant no.1 raised in his written statement. It is quite apparent that the issues have not yet been framed and from the amendments sought it is apparent that they are only with regard to amendment in paragraphs 37 and 38 of their written statement and addition in the Schedule of the written statement. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in allowing the said amendment sought by defendant no.1 ( Opposite Party no.3). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 with a liberty to defendant no.2-petitioner to amend his pleadings, with respect to his claim regarding the statements added by defendant no.1 (opposite party no.3) by the aforesaid amendment, within a month. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)