KANCHAN BAI Vs. HEMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 17/01/2013 passed by VI additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 45 -A/2009, whereby application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. was allowed and respondent No. 1 was permitted to make amendment in the cause title and also in the body of the plaint, present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, partition and possession. In the said suit name of the petitioner was shown as wife of Omprakash. This suit was filed in the year 2000. Thereafter an application for amendment was filed in the year 2012, wherein it was prayed that the respondent No. 1 be permitted to amend the cause title by putting the name of Ramkishan Saini as husband of the petitioner. Amendment was also sought in the body of the plaint.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent No. 1 was that since Omprakash was married to Shailbala, who is respondent No. 8, therefore, petitioner cannot be the wife of Omprakash.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the widow of Omprakash and is wedded wife of Omprakash. It is submitted that petitioner is the mother of the children from Omprakash, who are studying in the school. It is submitted that without holding any inquiry learned Court below was not justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and impugned order be set aside.