Judgment 1. This civil revision has been filed beyond time. There is delay of 33 days. Application (I.A. No. 5756/99) has been filed for condonation of delay. The opposite party has filed counter affidavit controverting the statements made in the limitation petition. In the facts and circumstances, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the delay in filing the revision is condoned and the application is allowed. 2. Another application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for addition of the left out defendants 3 in number, as opposite second party. The prayer is again opposed by the opposite party. It has been submitted that if the main civil revision itself is time barred, there is no question of adding any other person as opposite party. Considering the fact that the persons who were sought to be added as opposite second party are co-defendants and thus formal party, and that the delay in filing the civil revision has been condoned above, this application is also allowed. Madan Lal Jain, Kailash Jain and Premlal Jain are ordered to be added as opposite party nos. 6 to 8opposite second party. 3. Now coming to the civil revision itself, by the impugned order dated 16.12.98, one Smt. Sarswati Devi has been impleadad as defendant No.5 and new paragraphs, namely, paragraphs 4A, 4B, 4C, 8A, 21A, 21B and 21C and a new schedule namely, Schedule G containing the description of additional items of property, have been added in the plaint and the suit valuation has been increased from Rs. 78,41,000/- to Rs. 40,21,60,000/-. in the introductory paragraph of the application filed in the court below, which was labelled under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs stated that the amendment was being sought in view of the defendants plea regarding nonjoinder of Smt. Sarswati Devi and also in view of certain inadvertent typing mistakes and omissions in the plaint and also on account of subsequent acquisitions out of the joint family funds. Feeling aggrieved by the order the defendant no.2 has come in revision to this Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit (Title suit No. 16/78) for partition of properties detailed in schedules A to F of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the order the defendant no.2 has come in revision to this Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit (Title suit No. 16/78) for partition of properties detailed in schedules A to F of the plaint. Since the amendment, of which grievance has been made, relates to addition of additional items of property and no alteration otherwise has been brought about in the plaint, it is not necessary to state the plaintiffs case except to mention that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are full brothers being sons of Khem Raj Jain. The other plaintiffs/defendants are their respective sons. According to the plaintiffs the joint family owns immovable properties of different kind at different places besides movables and joint family business mentioned in the schedules. On account of the financial mis-management and misappropriation of income at the hands of the defendants, the relationship between them became sour. They demanded partition and on refusal, filed the suit. According to the defendants case on 16.10.71 there was a partial partition and the joint family status came to an end. This was followed by a complete partition of the properties on 23.11.76. The defendants also alleged misappropriation at the hands of the plaintiffs with respect to the properties which had remained joint after partial partition of 1971, and further stated that some items of property had not been included in the suit while such items would never belonged to the erstwhile joint family, had been included. 5. Adverting to the issue in hand, the nature of amendmant has already been indicated above. Although quite a number of paragraphs are sought to be added, mostly they relate to the acquisition of additional items of property and particulars thereof except paragraph 21A and 21B. In the former it is sought to be stated that Smt. Sarswati Devi after her marriage has been living in her in-laws house and has disclaimed her share in the properties in the suit, in the later paragraph i.e. 21B, the plaintiffs seek to reserve right to incorporate other items of the joint family properties and the joint family business in future "as soon as they come to know about the same". 6. Shri Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the amendments have been proposed after 20 years of the institution of the suit without any explanation as to why the same was not done earlier. 6. Shri Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the amendments have been proposed after 20 years of the institution of the suit without any explanation as to why the same was not done earlier. Secondly, he submitted, the cause of action with respect to the additional items of property are different inasmuch as most of them even according to the plaintiffs case were acquired later during the pendency of the suit. It was pointed out that the question of limitation may be involved. Thirdly, the amendments have not been sought in good faith. It was submitted that the whole idea in incorporating other items of property within the ambit of the suit is to wreck the defendants business which has prospered in course of time, and thus to cause harm to them. It was pointed out that soon after the amendments were allowed, the plaintiffs filed application for appointment of receiver which was allowed by the court below. Appointment of receiver is causing a tremendous strain, hardship and inconvenience to the defendants. It was stated that the order of appointment of the receiver has been separately challenged by the defendants in Miscellaneous appeal in this Court which is pending. Lastlly it was contended that the amendments are vague. The particulars of the properties have not been disclosed. The plaintiffs seek to include Private Limited Companies within the ambit of the suit, although companies and firms are covered by the Indian Companies Act and the Partnership Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with them. 7. Shri Srinath Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite party submitted that the plaintiffs could not prefer amendment earlier firstly, on account of pendency of C.R. No. 2275/79 in this Court upto the year 1986. Copy of the order dated 4.3.86 passed in the said civil revision was brought on record of the suit in the court below only on 7.9.90. In the meantime, original plaintiff, Manilal Jain died and the suit was dismissed for default in the year 1981 and it was restored only on 11.2.1998. During the intervening period the record of the suit was misplaced after creation of Sahebganj as a new District and establishment of the court of Subordinate Judge there and transfer of the records from the predecessor Court. During the intervening period the record of the suit was misplaced after creation of Sahebganj as a new District and establishment of the court of Subordinate Judge there and transfer of the records from the predecessor Court. On merit, counsel submitted that as per the long line of decisions, amendments of pleadings are to be liberally allowed unless it changes the nature of the suit and since in the present case nothing new is sought to be stated except to add certain additional items of property, the amendments are not likely to change the nature of the suit. It was stated that the defendants have filed additional written statement in view of the amended plaint and they cannot therefore, be allowed to make any grievance of the proposed amendments. 8. Before expressing my opinion on the arguments made, I would like to make a few introductory observations. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code contemplates that all amendments as may be necessary to determine "the real question in controversy" between the parties should be allowed irrespective of the stage of the suit. It is by virtue of judicial pronouncements that certain limitations have been put on the exercise of the power by the Court in this regard, such as, amendment should not be allowed if it changes the nature of the case by introducing a new and inconsistent case or a new cause of action, or takes away the rights of the other party, or the proposed amendment is barred by some law or is mala fide. The application of these principles would depend on the facts of the case and naturally would vary from case to case. 9. Going strictly by the terms of Order 6 Rule 17, as indicated above, the rule contemplates allowing such amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy in the suit. From the pleadings of the parties in the present case, it appears that the main issue is whether there is unity of title with respect to the suit property between the parties, that is to say, whether the suit properties are joint family property or a partition had taken place earlier between them, as contended by defendants. From the pleadings of the parties in the present case, it appears that the main issue is whether there is unity of title with respect to the suit property between the parties, that is to say, whether the suit properties are joint family property or a partition had taken place earlier between them, as contended by defendants. In a partition suit addition of property is ordinarily allowed so that, in the event the plaintiffs case is accepted and the properties are found to be joint, a complete partition of the properties between the parties may be effected. But it does not mean that additional properties should be added in all cases. Where it is not allowed, the plaintiff is not likely to suffer any irreparable injury, for it is open to him to file another suit with respect to those properties. 10. In the present case it is the specific plea of the defendants that the properties which are sought to be included within the ambit of the suit by the proposed amendment, were acquired after the partition of 1976, as a matter of fact this is what the amendment petition also suggests. The additional properties are said to have been acquired out of joint family funds subsequent to the institution of the suit. In my opinion, the properties acquired by the party after institution of the suit may not stand on the same footing so far as cause of action is concerned. Even if the plaintiffs case on the point is accepted and it is held that there was unity of title and possession, after the demand for partition was made and, specially after the suit was filed, the joint family must be treated as having broken down and thus even if the plaintiffs further case is accepted that the additional properties were acquired out of the properties and funds which belonged to erstwhile joint family, while they may claim a share in such properties, the cause of action may not exactly be the same. It is better in my view, in such circumstances that another suit is filed by the plaintiffs with respect to such additional properties. Needless to point out that the fate of that suit would depend on the outcome of the previous suit. 11. It is better in my view, in such circumstances that another suit is filed by the plaintiffs with respect to such additional properties. Needless to point out that the fate of that suit would depend on the outcome of the previous suit. 11. It would not be out of place to mention that out of different sets of additionale properties, as mentioned in the proposed paragraphs nos. 4A, 4B, 4C, 8A and 21C, except the properties mentioned in paragraph 4B, all other properties are said to be the subsequent acquisitions from the joint family funds, by the plaintiffs themselves. As regards paragraph 4B, the plaintiffs have referred to as many as 15 Private Limited Companies. Except mentioning their names, nothing further has been stated. 12. It was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the business carried on by several Companies have since been closed and proceedings are going on in the Calcutta High Court under the Companies Act. It is true that an explanation has been furnished by the plaintiffs as to why the amendments were not sought earlier. However, in my opinion pendency of the civil revision in this Court or the subsequent events did not debar the plaintiffs from making any application for amendment. The fact that a large number of properties were sought to be added as suit properties raising the suit valuation from - Rs. 78,41,000/- to Rs. 40,21,66,000/- after 20 years followed by appointment of Receiver, are not insignificant facts which can be ignored in considering the bonafide of the plaintiffs. It is the specific case of the defendants that after the partition of 1976, as the circumstances would have it, fortune smiled on them and their business made tremendous progress and they acquired substantial properties in the shape of both immovables and movables situate at different places in the State of Bihar and outside the State, but with a dishonest motive the plaintiffs want share in those properties and with malafide motive included the same in the pending suit which was instituted with respect to only some of the items. I also find substance in the submission that the description of the additional properties is vague. No doubt, as pointed out by the counsel for the opposite party, the court can ask for further and better particulars, but that in my opinion is an entirely different issue. 13. I also find substance in the submission that the description of the additional properties is vague. No doubt, as pointed out by the counsel for the opposite party, the court can ask for further and better particulars, but that in my opinion is an entirely different issue. 13. In the above premises, I am inclined to think that the court beloW committed material irregularity in allowing the amendments simply on the ground that proposed amendments do not change the nature of the suit or the relief sought therein. 14. The above finding however, relates to amendments other than the amendments proposed vide paragraph 21A and addition of Smt. Sarswati Devi made by the same order. Smt. Sraswati Devi has been added as defendant on the plea of the plaintiffs themselves. Curiously however, while seeking her addition as a defendant by the same application, the plaintiffs further sought to incorporate the fact, vide proposed paragraph 21A, that she has been living in her in-laws house after her marriage and has disclaimed her share in the suit properties. Once they have prayed for her addition as defendant, whether the plaintiffs case of disclaimer by Smt. Sarswati Devi is correct or not has to be decided in her -presence. Therefore, that part of the amendment cannot be interferred with. I may mention here that the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by addition of Smt. Saraswati Devi by the impugned order; at least no argument whatsoever was made in this regard. If Smt. Sarswati Devi continues to remain as defendant, the plaintiffs case regarding "disclaimer" has to remain part of their pleading. 15. In the result, the impugned order dated 16.12.1998 except in so far as it relates to addition of Smt. Sarswati Devi as defendant no.5 and proposed paragraph 21 A, is set aside and this revision is allowed in part accordingly.