DEVANANDAN RAMANNA Vs. RAGHUNANDAN RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the 2nd defendant in first respondent's comprehensive suit in O.S.No.7325/2009 is knocking at the doors of the writ court seeking to lay a challenge to the order dated 12.11.2013 made by learned XXXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby his application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 seeking leave to amend his Written Statement has been rejected. After service of notice the contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the suit was filed on 1.11.2009; petitioner filed his Written Statement on 21.01.2010; he filed I.A.No.3 seeking leave of the Court for amending the Written Statement on 12.03.2012; the issues have not been framed and thus obviously the trial is yet to begin; that being the position, the Court below could not have denied leave to amend his Written Statement to include in the suit left over properties enumerated in the application; he further argues that it is a settled legal position that a suit for partition, necessarily has to comprise all the properties of the joint family and with such a contention having been taken up in his Written Statement, no effort having been made by the plaintiff's side to include all properties otherwise left over; the impugned order is infected with error of law warranting indulgence of this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, per contra, contends that the impugned order is not vulnerable in law or on facts, the same being a product of exercise of discretion; the application of the petitioner is not bonafide inasmuch as two more properties he has deliberately not enlisted and therefore such application need not be entertained at all; some of the properties enlisted in the subject application do not avail for partition since they were partitioned way back in the year 1992 itself and the one now sought to be included is the self acquisition of the respondent-plaintiff. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.