ORDER Heard. 2. The present application is by the plaintiff whose amendment of plaint in a partition suit has been disallowed by the court below. The defendant-opposite party has appeared and has been heard. 3. Originally a partition suit was brought in which the present petitioner was defendant no. 2. On death of plaintiff he was transposed as plaintiff. He has sought to make amendment to the plaint by adding certain subsequent events which took place after the suit was filed and which were within the knowledge of other defendants. This has been refused by the trial court solely on the ground that the petitioner was aware of this fact earlier and had not expeditiously took steps for amendment of plaint. Learned counsel for the defendants-opposite party has brought to my notice the order of this court passed in the year 1996 by which this Court had directed that efforts should be made to conclude the hearing of the suit within six months. He submits that over ten years have lapsed and if amendments in this way are permitted then another ten years could lapse. 4. Heard the parties and considered the rival submissions. 5. This is a partition suit. The parties are closely related. The present, plaintiff was defendant originally. The purpose for seeking the amendment is to bring on record the subsequent events and in view thereof the petitioner prayed for additional relief. It is well settled that if the amendment does not give rise to a new case but seeks to resolve, finally as between the parties on all issues amendment should be allowed in the interest of justice in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations. In my view the amendment with respect to subsequent events which took place after the suit was filed could only benefit to all the parties as all disputes between them could be resolved in one proceeding once for all. 6. In that view of the matter I set aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2005 passed by 9th Subordinate Judge, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 216 of 1986 and direct the trial court to allow the amendment as prayed for. 7. However, as this amendment would further delay the trial and it is submitted at the bar that some plaintiff witnesses have been examined, it would be fit and proper to allow the amendment, with a cost of Rs. 7. However, as this amendment would further delay the trial and it is submitted at the bar that some plaintiff witnesses have been examined, it would be fit and proper to allow the amendment, with a cost of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) to injure to the benefit of the Opp. party. On payment of such cost within a period of four weeks from today the trial court shall act in accordance with the observation as above. 8. The application is allowed.