ANANTARAM DAS Vs. ATOHURAM DAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of revision is directed against an order of the Munsiff, Barpeta, dated 28.3.1950 by which he disallowed petitioner's application for amendment of his plaint. Plaintiff had shown defendants 5 and 6 as minors in the plaint. In the written statement the defendants pleaded that Nos. 5 and 6 out of them were minors and were not properly represented. The plaintiff then applied for permission to amend the plaint in order to rectify the error. He also applied for the appointment of a guardian for defendants 5 and 6. The learned Munsiff disallowed the application on the ground that by their misdescription as adults defendants 5 and 6 had acquired an important right which would be lost to them if amendment were allowed.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised to the competency of the revision petition on behalf of the respondents. It is urged that the order of the learned Munsiff amounts to a decree and was appealable. A revision petition, therefore, it if argued, is not maintainable. In support of this contention the Learned Counsel for the respondents had relied on Nand Kumar v. Pashupati Ghosh, : A.I.R. 1941 Pat. 385 ; Shair Ali v. Jagmohan Ram, : A.I.R. 1931 All. 333 and Gangadhara Ramarao v. Mahtpati Suryarao,, 42 Mad. 219.

(3.) IN Shair Ali v. Jagmohan Ram, : A.I.R. 1931 All. 333, it was found that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against defendant 2. His name, therefore, was ordered to be struck off from the array of the parties.