IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1089 of 2008 BALGOBIND YADAV & ORS Versus SIRI YADAV & ORS ----------- 2. 31.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court in a partition suit when in paragraph 1 of the plaint it was categorically mentioned that the entire property of the subject matter of the partition suit is joint flowing out the nucleus of the joint family, the explanation which is now being sought to be given with regard to the nature of suit property by way of proposed amendment in no view of the matter would change the nature of the suit. The suit would still remain out and out a partition suit. The court below in fact has not gone into this crucial aspect of the matter and some how has been swayed away by proceeding under a mistaken notion of delay for rejecting the prayer for amendment in the plaint. In the opinion of this Court such delay would not be fatal for allowing the amendment prayed by the petitioners which in the facts of the present case would subserve the ends of justice. 2 Surendra/ It is true that the suit was filed in the year 2003 and thereafter the defendants having taken a plea of previous partition in the written statement have also started adducing evidence. Realising this part of delay counsel for the petitioners himself offers to compensate for such harassment caused to the defendants by quantifying it to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. This Court in the interest of justice and for the aforementioned reasons would accordingly allow the amendment by setting aside the impugned order, which of course will be subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- by the petitioners to the defendants within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is allowed with the aforementioned observation. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)