NABEENA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. DEBASIS SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska in Title Suit No. 65 of 1997 is under challenge in Civil Revision No. 400 of 2000, preferred by the Plaintiff for rejecting his prayer for some amendment in the plaint and is also under challenge in Civil Revision No. 59 of 2001, preferred by the defendant for allowing Plaintiff's prayer for some other amendment in the said plaint.

(2.) THE Plaintiff in the above sit is the petitioner and defendant in the said suit is the opposite party in Civil Revision No. 400 of2000 and likewise the said defendant is the petitioner and the said Plaintiff is the opposite party in Civil Revision No. 59 of 2001.

(3.) RELEVANT facts necessary for determining the question in controversy in both the revisions are like this : Plaintiff, who brought the above suit seeking a decree for partition of the suit properties morefuily described in Schedules A, B and C, is no other than the father of the defendant born through his first wife after whose death, he married Meenakhi Sahoo, who also passed away leaving behind her, the only daughter, Swagatika Sahoo for which on the advice of his father, Joginath Sahoo, he went for his third marriage with one Smt. Nilima Sahoo, who is serving as the Principal in Anganwadi Training Centre at Ambaguda in the District of Koraput. The Plaintiff and one Umacharan Sahoo, are the sons of Late Joginath Sahoo during whose life time on 7.10.1955 a partition suit T. S. No. 126 of 1955 filed by the said Umacharan Sahoo was compromised among them. The Plaintiff who brought the present suit for partition of Joint family properties after the death of his father, filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. after the said suit proceeded for some time seeking some amendment in the plaint such as impleading his brother Uma Charan Sahoo as defendant No. 2, inclusion of certain properties in Schedule 'B' and also addition of Schedule 'D' properties to the Plaint Schedule and claiming the same to be his self acquired properties over which the defendant has no manner of right, title, interest and possession. The relevant portion of the amendment sought for by the Plaintiff in the prayer portion of the plaint is quoted below :