RAM GOPAL GANDA Vs. BHIKARI GANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Bolongir, in t. S. No. 25 of 1954 rejecting the plaintiff's petition for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in this suit claiming to be Hindus governed by the Mitakshara Law, filed this suit against the defendants praying for reliefs mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint which were as Follows : "8. The plaintiffs claim - (a) declaration that they are entitled to 1/6 share each of the schedule A lands i. e. 1/2 of the whole together, and partition accordingly through Court; (b) delivery of possession of the shares to the parties after partition by metes and bounds: (c) any other relief as the Court deems fit under the circumstances; (d) costs of the suit; x x x x x". Written statement was duly filed by the defendants. Thereafter the Stamp reporter reported that in view of the nature of the prayer in the plaint, the suit fell within the purview of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. Thereupon, the plain tiffs made an application for amendment of the plaint by deleting prayer (a) which was a prayer for declaration of title and substituting therefor the following prayer: "the Schedule 'a' lands be partitioned and the plaintiffs be given 1/6 share each of the Schedule 'a' lands i. e. , Re. 1/2 of the whole together. " the remaining prayers (b), (c) and (d) were presumably not to be disturbed as no amendment was applied for in respect thereof.

(3.) THE only question for consideration in this matter is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the prayer for amendment of the plaint in the manner aforesaid. Under order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has power to alter or amend pleadings as may be necessary. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, being the petitioners in the present application, cited before me a case decided by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court Chhatu Lal v. Panchanan, AIR 1953 Cal 755 (A), (K. C. Dasgupta and Lahiri JJ.), where it was held that when a plaintiff, after making prayers for several kinds of reliefs, wished to abandon some of these with a view to save court-fees, the Court was bound to allow such an application and that whether as the result of deletion of prayer for some reliefs the suit failed or not was a matter which should be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. Their Lordships in their judgment observed as follows ; (paragraph 3)-