SRI HARIHAR MISHRA Vs. BAIRIGANJAN MISHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant in Title Suit No. 10 of 1978 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bolangir is the Petitioner. He has challenged the order by which a petition for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) was allowed and Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as co -Defendants.

(2.) THE opposite parties claiming to be the legal heirs of late Siba Prasad instituted the suit for partition. Their case in short is that late Dibakar had three sons, namely, the Petitioner late. Sibaprasad, late Suryamani and four daughters named Subhadra, Sabitri, Bengal and Sarojini. Late Suryamani died unmarried. Dibakar owned the suit land recorded in the settlement records in his name. When the suit for partition was instituted the opposite parties stated in para -5 of the plaint that Dibakar died in the year 1964 leaving behind 3 sons namely, Harihara, late Sibaprasad and late Suryamani as his legal heirs and successors, After his death. .the three sons possessed the suit lands as members of the Hindu joint family. There was no averment in the plaint that Dibakar had also left 4 daughters named above. In his written statement the Petitioner stated that Dibakar left only himself as his son, heir and successor. Late Sibaprasad and late Suryamani were not his sons and were strangers. Dibakar had also no daughters. Nevertheless he pleaded that the partition suit was bad for, non -joinder of parties.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the nature of the suit would 'not be changed 'by the proposed amendment and in order to, avoid multiplied of suits it was necessary to implead the four women as parties so as to determine their status and right as it came to light that they were daughters of Dibakar.