PRADIPTA KISHORE ROUTRAY Vs. NARENDRA CHANDRA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the Civil Revisions are between the same parties and raise common questions of law, both have been heard together an dare disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) CIVIL Revision No. 45/96 is directed against an order dated 3.2.1996 in title Suit No. 50/92 and Civil Revision 47/96 is directed against order dated 3.2.1996 in Title Suit No. 49/92 rejecting the prayer of defendants 4 to 6 for amendment of the written statement. Plaintiffs opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suits for declaration of their right, title and interest and for declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 2 in the suit in favour of recovery of possession. The substance of their cases is that since, the disputed property was the undivided interest of joint family, the alienations were invalid.

(3.) THE trial Court refused the petitions for amendment of written statement on the ground that such amendment would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs by changing the nature of the suit and by depriving the plaintiffs of the relief claimed. The subsequent petition for amendment of the petition for amendment of the written statement was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in Order 6, Rule 17 for amending a petition for amendment.