ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.2.2004 passed in Partition Suit No. 63/1992 by which the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Sitamarhi, had allowed the petition of the plaintiff-O.P. for amendment of the plaint. 3. The learned counsel for the defendant-Petitioner challenges the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that evidence of both the parties have already been closed and the arguments are also oh the verge of closure. Hence, at this stage no amendment should be allowed. He further contended that in the plaint Mahadeo Rai was said to have died in the year 1984, but it was sought to be amended to 2.7.1983 merely to nullify the effect of transactions made in December, 1983. He further contended that the nature of amendment was not at all formal as in Paragraphs-4 and 5 of the plaint extensive amendments were sought and even the shares were sought to be changed. He also stated that the plaintiff wanted to remove the entire statements in Paragraph-5 of the plaint which clearly changes the nature of the suit. Hence, according to him, the learned court below should not have allowed the amendment petition of the plaintiff: 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-O.P contended that argument in the suit has not yet started, although, evidence of both the parties have been closed. He further contended that the amendments sought were merely consequential in nature as several parties to the suit have died which resulted in change of shares and hence, in a Partition suit such amendment is necessary. With respect to the other amendments the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Opposite parties contended that they were sought merely with a view to correct the date, the typographical and clerical errors which had crept in the plaint and hence the said amendments did not effect any party adversely as they were merely formal in nature and did not change the nature of the suit 5. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned order, I find that the plaintiff can not be debarred from removing any clerical or typographical error in the plaint. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned order, I find that the plaintiff can not be debarred from removing any clerical or typographical error in the plaint. Since the suit is for partition, the scope of consequential amendment due to death of parties could always be required and more-over since no date of death of Mahadeb Rai was given in the plaint and only a wrong year of death was given therein, it was quite justified for the plaintiff to give the exact date of his death. I also find that there will be no change in the nature of the suit by allowing the amendment sought and it will still remain a suit for partition, although due to subsequent event, the shares of parties may change. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and this civil revision is accordingly dismissed.