JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Plaintiff has preferred this revision against an order allowing a petition for amendment on payment of costs in a suit for partition. Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 prayed for amendment of their written statement. It was stated that in the original written statement filed by these Defendants, there were omissions and mistakes due to inadvertence and as such in the ends of justice amendment was necessary. In paragraph 11 of the written statement it was stated that the joint family properties were the self-acquired properties of Harekrushna. The Defendants now want to describe the same as ancestral properties by way of amendment. The Plaintiff-Petitioner objected to this prayer for amendment on the ground that there have been categorical admissions on behalf of the Defendants that the properties in question were the self-acquired properties and the amendment sought for world change the nature and character of the suit and the Plaintiff would be highly prejudiced. The trial Court has allowed the petition on the ground that there has been no admission by the Defendants of any of the assertions of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced in any way, nor the nature and character of the suit would be changed. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff-Petitioner that in paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that the property described in Schedule B of the plaint is the joint family immovable property belonging to the branch of Harekrushna in which the share of Bidyadhar alias Budhi is 1/3rd, that of Jadu is 1/3rd and the remaining 1/3rd belongs to the branch of Padmanav. It is stated by the Plaintiff that this assertion is admitted by Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 in paragraph 11 of the written statement. A perusal of the contents of paragraph 11 would show that they have denied the assertion of the Plaintiff that each one of the persons named in paragraph 3 of the plaint has got 1/3rd share in the B Schedule property. It is rather contended that; the Plaintiff has got 1/17th share and towards the end of that paragraph it is stated that the B Schedule property was the self-acquired property of Harekrushna. It is rather contended that; the Plaintiff has got 1/17th share and towards the end of that paragraph it is stated that the B Schedule property was the self-acquired property of Harekrushna. The amendment sought for would show that the Defendants state that this property is the ancestral property of Harekrushna and due to inadvertence by mistake this has been described as self-acquired property. The contents of paragraphs 9 & 11 of the written statement of these-Defendants would show that they have not admitted the assertion of the Plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint. On the other hand, it appears that they have denied the assertion of the Plaintiff relating to shares. It may also be mentioned that the Plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint has stated that the properties were not joint family properties of Harekrushna and his sons. By amendment of the written statement, this assertion would no way be denied or changed. In short, there is no admission by Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 as stated by the Plaintiff, and the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the Plaintiff. 3. It may be mentioned here that this is a suit for partition and every Plaintiff is in the possession of a Defendant and every Defendant is in the position of a Plaintiff. It is well settled that the Court will not be a silent observer in such cases. It is the duty of the Court to see that the real controversy between the parties is decided. The governing consideration in an application to amend the written statement should be how far, if at all the proposed amendment of the defence is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. If that test is not satisfied then the amendment should not be allowed, even on the ground that there can be no real prejudice by the amendment. The Court exists primarily for the justice of determining the genuine and real disputes between the parties and incidentally for awarding costs in case of amendment. The real controversy test is the basic test which governs the powers of the Court with regard to amendment of pleadings. 4. The Court exists primarily for the justice of determining the genuine and real disputes between the parties and incidentally for awarding costs in case of amendment. The real controversy test is the basic test which governs the powers of the Court with regard to amendment of pleadings. 4. The present suit being one for partition, it is the duty of the Court to find out what should be the share of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendants and that will rest on the question whether it is joint family property or not. In such a case, the real controversy between the parties is what should be the share of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendants. The Plaintiff has claimed 1/3rd share and the contesting Defendants have asserted that the Plaintiff has got 1/17th share and as such I do not find that the amendment will cause any prejudice to the Plaintiff. 5. In the result, the revision has no merit and dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed