NARABDESHWAR CHOUBEY Vs. BHOLA CHOUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner who is the defendant has challenged the order 12.8.2010 passed in Title Appeal No. 353/2000, by which the appellate court has allowed the amendment petition of the petitioner in a partition suit.

(2.) An amendment petition had been filed on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff praying therein that he may be permitted to add certain lands which are part of the joint family property but which could not be mentioned in the plaint. The court has considered the fact that these lands which are mentioned in Ext.-1 filed on behalf of the petitioner which is the R.S. Khatian indicating that the lands were settled jointly in the name of both the parties. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the amendment has been made after delay and the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to explain the reason for filing this amendment at the appellate stage.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that some of the plots had already been mentioned in the plaint but the corresponding particulars had not been given, whereas some plots had been added after the plaintiff made an enquiry regarding certain sale deed executed by the defendant.