IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1842 of 2006 MOTI LAL MANJHI Versus BISHWANATH MANJHI & ORS ----------- 3. 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the learned Munsif-II, Siwan in title suit No. 1 of 2004 by which the petition of the plaintiff under Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. From the impugned order, it appears that by the amendment, the plaintiff sought for deleting one of the reliefs from the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the plaintiff is attempting to delete the properties of the schedule-2 of the plaint in respect of which earlier he had prayed for declaration of title to the extent of 1/3 on the ground that the said properties were joint family properties. While deleting the same the plaintiff is attempting to exclude these properties from the consideration by the Court for partition of the same as joint family properties. The learned court below has observed that after the amendment of the plaint the defendant shall be at liberty to file additional written statement. It goes without saying that in a suit for partition, the defendants are also at liberty to file petition in the court for inclusion of any other property of joint family for the purposes of - 2 - partition which appear to have been left out by the plaintiff deliberately or by mistake. In such a situation, the defendant/petitioner can raise all his grievances in his additional written statement for which liberty has already been granted by the court below to him. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the matter and the revision application is disposed of. (J. N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-