VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. JYOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the part of order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Kurud, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.23-A/2015 by which the trial Court has allowed the amendment application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have filed the suit seeking declaration of their title based on Will deed in respect of certain properties way back in the year 1983. Initially the suit was decreed. On appeal being preferred by the petitioners/defendants, the same was dismissed as barred by limitation. However, in the second appeal, the order of the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for decision on merits. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.2.2015 allowed the first appeal and remanded back the matter to the trial Court. At this belated stage, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for amendment before the trial Court on 14.5.2015. It has been argued that in the said application, certain consequential amendments were made, simultaneously, they sought to introduce and bring some more properties within the ambit of dispute, which were not the subject-matter of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, in a mechanical manner, allowed the amendment application only on the ground that the defendants do not dispute regarding the properties being ancestral properties. He further submits that amendment sought in paragraphs 7 and 8 are unnecessary and amendment sought in paragraph 9 is consequential to the amendment sought in paragraph 6 of the amendment application. As far as amendment sought in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the amendment application is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no objection because they are consequential in nature and due to subsequent events.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 submits that in order to make the pleadings more explicit for effective decision of the issue involved in the instant case, the respondents/plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include those lands also which have not been disputed to be ancestral properties.