PRAFULLA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. CHARULATA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack allowing amendment of the plaint has been challenged.

(2.) The plaintiff (opposite party 1) instituted Title Suit No. 348 of 1980 for partition of the suit property claiming one-third share therein. During trial of the suit her evidence and the evidence of defendant 2 (opposite party 2) had been closed and defendant 1 (petitioner) had already examined seven witnesses. At that point of time the plaintiff filed a petition under O.6, R.17 of the Civil P.C. (Code for short) for amendment of the plaint for inclusion of two more reliefs (i) claiming rendition of accounts and (ii) recovery of mesne profits in addition to the original prayer for partition. The petitioner opposed the amendment on the ground that the proposed reliefs claiming rendition of accounts and recovery of mesne profits were barred by limitation. After hearing both parties, however, the learned Court below allowed the amendments limiting the claim for mesne profits for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit.

(3.) The only point that falls for consideration is whether the reliefs claiming rendition of accounts and mesne profits should not have been allowed to be introduced by way of amendment of the plaint.