JASBIR KAUR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly the petitioner is a co-sharer in joint family in a suit for partition. For some reason, the plaintiff had impleaded six defendants who had named defendant Nos.1 and 2 as contesting parties and defendant Nos.3 to 6 as proforma. The petitioner before this Court was arrayed as proforma defendant No.3. These proceedings arising out of a suit for partition. The petitioner applied to the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure to amend her written statement to introduce the fact by adding the following lines at the end of the written statement to the effect:-

(2.) It was submitted before the trial Court that the proposed amendment was necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and if the request was allowed, it would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff or the contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2. It may noted that the plaintiff and the defendants including the petitioner are brothers/sisters/cousins with a claim to partition vesting in all of them. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar has rejected the application merely on the ground that the amendment at this stage would delay proceedings. The defendants/petitioner has not yet led evidence. The plaintiff did not even choose to file reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure and to contest that application. The application was contested by co-defendant Nos.1 and 2 which is rather strange.

(3.) In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if the impugned order dated 18th Jan., 2014 is allowed to stand it would work injustice on the petitioner and she would not be let to truly and effectively participate in the partition process which would define separate portions for each of the tenants.