KATAKI DEI Vs. HEMA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revisions are directed against an order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. He disposed of two applications by the said order, one of which was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment and the other filed by the defendants for abatement of the suit. Both the applications were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) I shall first deal with the application for amendment. Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 975 of 1989 have filed the suit for a declaration that (a) the defendants have not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property on the strength of the document dated 18-1-1990; and (b) for a decree to restrain the defendants permanently in interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The petitioners prayed for deletion of their prayer (a) and for substitution in its place a prayer to the effect that the document styled as deed of gift purported to have been executed by Osi Dei in favour of predecessor of defendant No. 1 is void, illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside. Defendant No. 6 alone resisted the petition on the ground that the amendment would change the character of the suit and the proposed amendment was made after the period of limitation prescribed for setting aside a document. The plea found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who refused the prayer for amendment.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit and therefore, the refusal was improper. The learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties, however, submits that the petition having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in refusing to accept the said prayer.