Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-X, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby and whereunder the amendment petition dated 14.08.2014 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed Partition Suit No. 210/2000 for declaration 1/6 share of plaintiff/petitioner in schedule-2 property and declaration of gift deed dated 19.04.1986 executed by Smt. Parvati Devi in favour of Raman Prasad Sinha, not to be binding upon the plaintiff and same is invalid. The defendants on notice appeared and filed their written statement and issues were framed and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of plaintiff/petitioner. The petitioner claimed that being the junior member of family he has no knowledge about the entire property of the joint family and the documents is lying with the defendants which he mentioned in the plaint. When the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about the details of some more joint family property which was not mentioned in the plaint, he obtained the document with regard to that property and filed a petition on 14.08.2014 for amendment/addition of the property mentioned in the petition, in the foot of schedule-2. After hearing the parties, the said petition of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the amendment sought for will not change the nature of the case. In the main plaint it is already mentioned that the documents with regard to joint family property is/was with the defendants, in such situation the plaintiff/petitioner being the junior member, having no knowledge of entire joint family property. In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that the suit land and house on the same had been purchased and constructed the house on the suit land by defendant No. 1 from the joint family fund and in the same plaintiff and defendants are living jointly but defendant No. 2 started saying the same property as her personal property on the basis of forged gift and refused for partition, hence the plaintiff/ petitioner filed this suit. The prayer must be read with pleading and the substance of the suit is partition of suit property which is clear from the plaint itself. Further, he has submitted that the amendment sought for is not barred by law of limitation and is bona fide which is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case and would cause no irreparable prejudice to other side if allowed and refusing amendment lead to multiple litigation. Lastly, he has submitted that suit is of year 2000 in which the proviso inserted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 is not applicable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional error and has been passed considering the material on record and facts and circumstances of the case and is not required for interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. The amendment petition dated 14.08.2014 to add the ancestral properties as subject matter of the suit is against the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 which bars such petitions after commencement of trial unless and until the Court come to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The plaintiff/petitioner has adopted his lingering tendency instead of examining himself as 1st witness in terms of Order 18 Rule 3A CPC examined two witnesses mostly of formal nature.

6. He has further submitted that petitioner filed a declaratory suit under the garb of Partition Suit No. 210 of 2000 for the partition of the house standing on the suit land impeading father as defendant no. 1 and other