IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13771 of 2010 1. DEO NARAYAN SAO S/O LATE CHAMRU SAO R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 2. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O DEO NARAYAN SAO R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 3. PUNAM KUMARI D/O DEO NARAYAN SAO R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 4. KRISHANADEO SAO S/O LATE CHAMRU SAO R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 5. NIRJALA MINOR D/O SRI KRISHNADEO SAO, WHO ARE RESIDING UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF FATHER R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 6. SANJULA MINOR D/O SRI KRISHNADEO SAO, WHO ARE RESIDING UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF FATHER R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 7. PUSHPANJALI MINOR D/O SRI KRISHNADEO SAO, WHO ARE RESIDING UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF FATHER R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 8. BIKASH KUMAR MINOR SON OF SRI KRISHNADEO SAO, WHO IS RESIDING UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER R/O VILL PHULWARIA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. RAM KUMAR @ PAWAN KUMAR ADOPTED SON OF LATE BAIJNATH DAS THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIENDS 2. RAMJEE DAS S/O BINDESHWARI DAS R/O MOH FULWARIA, P.S.FULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 3. NIRMALA DEVI W/O SUBODH KUMAR , D/O KRISHNADEO SAH R/O GACHHITOLA, P.O.& DISTT-BEGUSARAI 4. PARMILA DEVI W/O DILIP KUMAR , D/O KRISHNADEO SAH R/O VILL AJAHUR, P.O.AJHAUR, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 5. SHARMILA DEVI W/O SUBODH KUMAR SAO, D/O KRISHNADEO SAO R/O PALTEL CHOWK, P.S.& DISTT-BEGUSARAI 6. URMILA DEVI W/O KANESH DAS, D/O KRISHNADEO SAO R/O VILL HASSANPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR 7. RAM DHANI SAH S/O LATE NIRO SAH R/O VILL SOKHARA, P.S.PHULWARIA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI ----------- 2/ 07/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Respondent No.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Partition Suit No.37/08. The respondent, as defendant No.1, filed an application admitting the case of the plaintiffs and that a decree for partition may be passed over the suit 2 lands at Schedule-A of the written statement. However, the respondent sought to add certain more plots to the partition also mentioned in Schedule-A of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the claims as made out in the plaint were admitted, a judgement on admissions was to follow under Order-12, Rule-VI of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly acknowledges that till such time that the judgement was not delivered, the respondent was not bound by his application and could have varied his stand. It is however submitted that the respondent in the garb of withdrawing his admission could not have sought insertions of further properties into the plaint virtually amending the plaint which was the privilege of the plaintiff alone. The impugned order dated 21.5.2010 directing amendment of the plaint to include the additional properties sought to be suggested by Respondent No.1 is therefore contrary to the law. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 finds it difficult to satisfy the Court that on his application the trial court could have directed amendment of the plaint which, as was rightly submitted, was the privilege of the plaintiff. The Court however does find that the 3 Respondent No.1 has sought to raise details of certain other properties as being the subject-matter of partition. Once he has raised this issue, the admission attributed to him earlier obviously comes to an end. What shall be the effect of the earlier admission made are matters to be adjudicated in the suit itself. If so advised, and if the Respondent No.1 files a contesting written statement within the reasonable time of approximately two months, the suit shall then proceed on its own merits in accordance with law. Failure of the Respondent No.1 to file a contesting written statement as above, shall naturally leave his admission in context of the pleadings put fort by the plaintiff when the suit shall proceed accordingly. With the aforesaid observations the order dated 21.5.2010 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)