ORDER 11.12.2003 — Heard. 2. In this writ petition, defendant Nos.3 to 8 in Title Suit No.56 of 1999 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna challenge to the order of amendment of the plaint allowed by the said Court on 29.1.2003. That order has been appended to this writ petition as Annexure-4. Copy of the plaint, written statement and the application for amendment have also been appended to the writ petition as Annexures 1 to 3 respec¬tively. Grievance of the petitioners is that through the proposed amendment plaintiffs have tried to make out a new case so as to subterfuge the defence plea of the defendants 3 to 8 and also to change the nature and character of the suit. Accordingly, they pray to set aside the impugned order. In that context they rely on the case of Bhubaneswar Patel v. Janak Patel and others, A.I.R. 1976 Orissa, page-216. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterates the ground on which the trial Court has allowed the application for amendment and claims its necessity. 3. It appears from Annexure-1 that plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of partition of the suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint and allotment of shares to the plain¬tiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It appears from Annexure-2 that defendant Nos.3 to 8 have advanced various contentions excluding the title and possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and claiming absolute right, title, interest and possession over the disputed property. It appears from Annexure-3 that plaintiffs wanted amendment of the plaint to introduce the fact as to how the branch of defendant Nos.3 to 8 through Late Sankar Prasad Pattnaik were brought on revenue record and how they are not entitled to any claim over the disputed property and conse¬quentially pray for a decree of declaration of title and posses¬sion in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 jointly and thereafter for partition of the said property in accordance with the original prayer in the plaint. They have also claimed for mesne profits. 4. They have also claimed for mesne profits. 4. It appears from Annexure-4 that on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and the issue involved in the suit, the trial Court found it appropriate that the conflicting claim of right, title, interest between defendant Nos.3 to 8 vis-a-vis the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 should be set at rest while considering the prayer for partition by the plaintiffs. According¬ly, the Civil Judge opined to avoid multiplicity of litigations and to grant substantial justice to the parties on all the rele¬vant issues and the amended portion should be added to the plaint. Accordingly the application for amendment was allowed. Keeping in view the harassment which the defendants 3 to 8 suffer because of that amendment, a cost of Rs. 200/- has also been awarded against the plaintiffs. 5. The ratio in the case of Bhubaneswar Patel (supra) was laid down by this Court in a different context and when the hear¬ing of the suit had already commenced and an inconsistent plea was introduced at a belated stage in that suit. Thus ratio in that case is not found applicable to the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. The fact which the defendants brought on record in their written statement have been explained by the plaintiffs through the amendment. Whether or not this amendment would have been allowed, relevant issues had to be cast on the basis of such plea in the written statement. When the hearing of the suit has not commenced and there is no other statutory bar for entertaining the application for amendment and when the trial Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him, has considered and passed the impugned order in allowing the amendment, this Court does not find any illegality in the im¬pugned order. Power of superintendence of the High Court as provided in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in case of erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the Subordinate Courts, exercise of jurisdiction in excess of authority vested with such Courts or in case of refusal or improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in such Courts. Such power of superintendence is also exercisable when it appears from the impugned order that an error of law apparent on the face of the record has been committed or there has been violation of the principle of natural justice. Such power of superintendence is also exercisable when it appears from the impugned order that an error of law apparent on the face of the record has been committed or there has been violation of the principle of natural justice. Similarly, the power of of superintendence should be exercised when the impugned order or procedure followed suffers from arbitrariness or capricious exercise of the authority or discretion, recording of finding suffering from perversity or patent or flagrant error in following the procedure. As noted above, this Court does not find any such illegality or jurisdic¬tional error or violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Before parting with the case, it is noted for appro¬priate action by learned Civil Judge that valuation of the suit and the court-fee assessed thereon by the plaintiffs is not in accordance with the provision in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties concedes to such mistake and undertakes to correct the same within a period of six weeks. Be that as it may, learned Civil Judge shall peruse the pleadings of the plaintiff and direct the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and to pay the appropriate court-fees within a stipulated period and in the event of failure, he may pass appropriate order including an order in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. Petition dismissed.