JAYALAKSHMI Vs. SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed in I.A.No.4746/2016 in O.S.No.106/2011 of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Palakkad, the 12th defendant in the suit, has filed the original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents 1 to 11 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 12 to 24 are the defendants in the suit.

(2.) The petitioner's case, relevant for the determination of the original petition, is: The suit is filed by respondents 1 to 11, for a decree of partition. The respondents 1 to 11 have claimed that they are entitled to 13/27 shares, the first defendant is entitled to

(3.) /27 shares, the second defendant is entitled to 4 /27 shares, defendants 3 to 15 are entitled to 1 /27 shares and the defendants 6 to 11 are entitled to 4 /27 shares in the plaint scheduled property. The petitioner is residing in the house situated in the plaint scheduled property. The first defendant has alleged in Ext.P2 written statement that the petitioner does not have a right over the plaint scheduled property. The defendants 2 to 11 have in Ext.P3 written statement agreed for the partition. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 written statement, inter-alia, contending that the plaint scheduled property is not partible. The suit was listed for trial on 9/12/2016. The fourth respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked through him in evidence, and suit was adjourned for further evidence to 13/12/2016. Then, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P5 application, seeking leave to amend the plaint, alleging that certain omissions have crept in the plaint regarding the extent of the property. The application was opposed by the petitioner through Ext.P6 counter statement. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P7 order, has allowed Ext.P5. Ext.P7 is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.R.Harishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.R.Gangadas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 11.