MANJULA JOTHI Vs. B KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the present revision petition as against the order dated 17.04.2009 in I.A.No.166 of 2009 in O.S.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Judge No.I, Erode.

(2.) THE trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.166 of 2009 filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff prayed for amendment of plaint as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code has among other things observed that "the 4th and 5th respondents are the children of the petitioner and their father as guardian has been conducting the suit and it is for the said father as guardian to file the amendment application and it is not for the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff to file the present amendment application, which is contrary to law and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs".

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, Respondents 2 & 14 have filed a memo of counter, wherein they have taken a categorical plea that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim that subsequent to the suit, if a particular Defendant abandons right in the suit, it does not amount to transfer of right in favour of a particular party to the suit. Moreover, the property of a living person shall not be transferred, unless bequeathed in a testament. Also a plea has been taken that the proposed amendment claiming the right of Defendants 1 & 3 cannot be done by the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff for the Defendants 4 & 5, since it is the duty of the Defendants 4 & 5 to plead the right, if any. Further, it is not open to the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff to plead for their cause and seek the proposed amendment.