SUDHA AGRAWAL Vs. RITU GUPTA @ RITU AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Sub-Judge-5, Bhabhua, in Title Suit No. 25 of 2002, whereby the Court below has allowed a petition dated 26.9.2012 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for amendment in the plaint. The suit for partition being Title Suit No. 25 of 2002 was filed by the respondents. The petitioners were impleaded as defendant Nos. 17A to 17D. The case of the petitioners is that after nearly ten years of the institution of the suit and after closing of the evidence of the plaintiff, a petition dated 26.9.2012 was filed seeking various amendments in the plaint.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that while allowing the plaint to be amended by the impugned order, the whole foundation of the case is being changed. It has been submitted that by seeking amendment after ten years, particularly much after commencement of trial the plaintiffs are trying to add various properties in the plaint as joint family property including such property which were self-acquired properties by the petitioners. Referring to the amendment petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at such belated stage an application seeking amendment, which amounts to virtually changing the entire texture of the plaint should not have been allowed by the Court below. He further submits that the written statement was filed on the basis of assertions made in the plaint. The facts asserted in the plaint and not disputed in the written statement are such admissions which could not have been withdrawn by way of amendment.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent first set, on the other hand, has submitted that the amendment which has been allowed to be made in the plaint would not prejudice the case of the petitioners as they would be having sufficient opportunity of rebuttal. He submits that the Court below has acted within its jurisdiction by allowing amendment in the plaint for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order and it does not require any interference by this Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.