Judgment 1. Thb civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder-petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 13.6.2005 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Munger, rejected their petition for amendment in the plaint and also for making correction in the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1964. 2. The said suit was filed by the petitioner for partition of the suit properties and the same was decreed on 13.9.1972 and preliminary decree was prepared against which First Appeal No. 31 of 1973 was filed. But this Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned court below. 3. From the materials on record including the impugned order it is quite clear that two petitions dated 27.7.1966 and 29.7.1966 were filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, out of which the first one was with respect to amendment in the genealogy as given in Schedule-A of the plaint whereas the second one was with respect to addition of some more lands in Schedule-B of the plaint and also to change in the valuation of the suit property. It transpires that on 29.7.1966 only amendment petition dated 27.7.1966 was considered and allowed and the amendment sought therein was incorporated in the plaint also but neither there was any order with respect to the amendment petition dated 29.7.1966 nor the said amendment was ever incorporated in the plaint. Hence, the suit was decreed accordingly in the year 1972 and preliminary decree was also confirmed by this Court. 4. It further transpires that much thereafter on 22.12.2001 a petition was filed by the petitioner under the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree incorporating the amendment sought vide afore- said amendment petition dated 29.7.1966 with respect to addition of land and enhancement of valuation of the suit. After considering the said matter in detail, the learned court below rejected the said petition by order dated 23.6.2004 (Annexure-6). It transpires that the aforesaid order dated 23.6.2004 was challenged by the plaintiff-decree-holder in Civil Revision No. 947 of 2004 in which after argument petitioners counsel sought permission to withdraw the revision to unable them to file a petition tor review in the court below and hence the said Civil Revision was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2005 (Annexure-1). It transpires that thereafter the petitioner filed a petition dated 2.3.2005 for review of the earlier order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the learned court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below dismissed the said review petition by the impugned order dated 13.6.2005. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the amendment sought by the plaintiff in the plaint during the pendency of the suit with respect to land and valuation was neither pressed nor allowed nor the amendment sought was ever incorporated although the suit continued for about seven years after filing of the said amendment petition. Furthermore, the said decree of the learned court below with respect to the land already involved in the suit as per valuation of the suit property described in the plaint was affirmed by this Court in the First Appeal and hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to now permit the plaintiff to amend her plaint and to make any change in the preliminary decree as the change sought by the plaintiff was not mere correction but was addition of fresh subject matter in the suit and the decree. 6. In said circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed.