IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1735 of 2006 1. SMT.RAJ KISHORI DEVI, Second wife of Late Bijali Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Pratappur, Police Station – Karja, District – Muzaffarpur. 2. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari @ Devi, Wife of Anand Kumar, Daughter of Raj Kishori Devi, (Second wife of Late Bijali Singh), resident of village + Post Office – Shagwanpur, Police Station – Sadar, District – Muzaffarpur. ….. Defendants / Petitioners. Versus 1. SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Sudist Narayan Singh, 2. Ashwani Kumar, 3. Abhisekh Kumar, Both minor sons under the guardianship of the natural Father and the next friend Surendra Prasad Singh. All residents of village + Post Office – Pratappur, Police Station – Karja, District – Muzaffarpur…. Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties 4. Banke Bihari Singh, son of Late Sudist Narayan, 5. Shrimati Sunita Devi, wife of Late Sanjay Kumar, 6. Ranjaya Kumar, son of Banke Bihari Singh, 7. Rajendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Sudish Narayan Singh, 8. Chandan Kumar @ Guddu, son of Rajendra Prasad Singh, 9. Shri Sambhu Singh, son of Trilok Singh, 10. Smt. Sunaina Devi, wife of Prof. Surendra Prasad Thakur, daughter of Bijali Singh (from the first Officer), resident of Gobarshahi Chowk, Post Office – Khabra, Police Station – Khabra, District – Muzaffarpur, 11.Gupalipari Devi, wife of Vidya Nand Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Basra Sukul, Police Station – Jaitpur, District – Muzaffarpur, 12.Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Rajendra Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Basra Sukul, Police Station – Jaitpur, District – Muzaffarpur, 13.Smt. Parwati Devi, wife of Satrudhan Singh, resident of village – Gauriganma, Post Office – Repura Police Station – Saraiya, District – Muzaffarpur, 14.Shyam Kumar Singh, 15.Ram Sumer Singh, Both sons of Late Surati Devi, (Daughter of Late Jittu Singh), 2 Both are residents of village + Post Office – Mohan Chhapra, Police Station – Paru, District – Muzaffarpur, 16. Chameli Devi, wife of Late Munshi Singh, dauther of Late Jittu Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Necknampur, Police Station – Deoria, District – Muzaffarpur, 17. Subjee Devi, wife of Banai Singh, daughter of Late Jittu Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Nawada, Police Station – Jaitpur, District – Muzaffarpur, 18. Basant Kumar, son of Late Satya Narayan Sharma, Maternal grandson of Jittu Singh, resident of Village + Post Office – Basra Sukul, Police Station – Jaitpur, District – Muzaffarpur, 19. Ram Ishwar Singh, son of Yogendra Singh, resident of village Chhap, Rahar, Police Station - Parum, District – Muzaffarpur, 20. Jaleshwar Singh, son of Birendra Singh, resident of village + Post Office – Gaura, Police Station – Deoriaya, District – Muzaffarpur… ……...…. Defendants/Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate M/s Ranjan Kumar Dubey and Sangeeta Sharma, Advocates ----------- 4 13.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge, Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No. 197 of 1992, whereby amendment in the plaint has been allowed. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that since new facts are being introduced by the amendment allowed, the court concerned ought to have 3 rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for making amendment in the plaint. However, it is admitted that the factum of existence of the second wife of late Bijli Singh stands described in the plaint and such statement has been further enlarged by the amendment allowed by the court below to the extent that defendant no. 11, Smt. Mithilesh Kumari, is the daughter of the second wife of late Bijli Singh. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to take steps for rebuttal of the amendment, which has been allowed by the impugned order, by filing either an application for amendment in the written statement or any additional written statement and on such steps being taken by the defendants-petitioners, the court concerned shall pass an order in accordance with law. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)