ORDER :- Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the petitioners in this revision. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The matter arises out of a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 11-8-1978. Final decree application was filed and pursuant to orders thereon, the Commissioner visited the properties for effecting division. According to the plaintiffs, it was at that time they noticed the omission to include a well in one of the survey numbers as available for division. This obliged them to file an application for amendment of the plaint under O.6, R.17 C. P. C., hereinafter referred to as the Code. to include the said well. This application has been dismissed by the Court below and this revision is directed against the order of the court below.

2. Mr. P. Sadasivam. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought not have discountenanced the plea for amendment of the plaint the suit being one for partition and the court below erred in not accepting the explanation offered by the plaintiffs for non-inclusion of the well in the suit properties earlier. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Court below erred also in adjudicating on the