PRAMOD KUMAR PRUSTY Vs. AINA PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S No.92/136 of 2010/2009 allowing the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The facts leading to the present case are that opposite party nos.1 to 8 as plaintiffs filed C.S No.92/136 of 2010/2009 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land described in Schedules A and B of the plaint. The plaintiffs in the plaint inter alia alleged that they are in possession of the land for more than the prescribed period as such they have perfected title thereto though the Record of Rights stand in the name of one Janha Bewa, the mother of defendant no.1, who was allotted with a share in a family partition in the year 1930. The plaintiffs also challenged the Sale Deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of other defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the objections raised by the defendants the court below should have dismissed the application for amendment as the intention of the plaintiffs is mala fide and telltale on the basis of proposed amendment the plaintiffs want to withdraw the admissions made in the plaint, which is not permissible. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others, 2008 7 SCC 85, Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and others, 1998 AIR(SC) 618 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, 2009 2 OrissaLR 815.