PATREPPA Vs. BALAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.13 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Soundatti, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession wherein they had claimed certain properties as belonging to the Hindu joint family; they further claimed that they were entitled to 1/3rd of the suit properties. The petitioner, as defendant, filed his written statement. In the written statement, he took a specific stand that in fact the properties were partitioned as far back as 1972. The partition was acted upon as certain mutations were effected, on the basis of the said partition, by the revenue authorities. After the evidence of PW.1 was recorded, but before the cross -examination of PW.1 could commence, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for wanting to amend the written statement. However, by the impugned order dated 10.10.2013, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Sachm S. Magadum, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the petitioner wanted to clarify that the property in Sy. No. 197 of Akkisagar village was purchased by their father and was his self acquired property. Thus, the property is not the property of the joint Hindu Family. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. Moreover, relying on the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v/s. Bhagwan Das (D), ( : AIR 2008 S.C.2139), the learned Counsel has pleaded that if the amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and if the amendments are not going to cause injustice to the other side, the amendment should be allowed. According to the learned Counsel, both these conditions have been met in the present case. Thirdly, the amendment being made by the defendant should be dealt with more liberally than the amendment being made by the plaintiffs. In order to support this contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the case of Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v/s. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary, [(1995) Supp(3) SCC 179].