NAZMA KHATOON Vs. SALMA KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the order dated 2nd of June, 2016, the learned Sub Judge-I, Jamui, rejected the application dated 16th of December, 2013 in Title Suit No. 37 of 2004 for bringing on record the additional written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a title suit in the court of learned Sub Judge, 1st Jamui, seeking preliminary decree for partition of the suit property to the extent of plaintiff's share to be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and the same to be carved out by appointment of a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner as well as other reliefs. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amendment petition dtd. 6/6/2013 to the effect that the land mentioned in the Schedule II of the plaint of village Mahisouri (Jamui) appertaining to Khata No. 129, Plot No. 911, area 4 decimals be deleted from Scheduled property and accordingly, the total area of 19 decimals of village Mahisouri (Jamui) be corrected as 15 decimals. This amendment was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 20th of August, 2013. Learned counsel further submits that on 2nd of September, 2013, the defendants/petitioners filed an application for permission to file additional written statement after the amendment dated 20th of August, 2013 but the said application was not moved. Thereafter, the defendants/petitioners filed a written statement dated 13th of September, 2013 supplementing and explaining their earlier written statement dated 11th of February, 2010. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application to reject the same vide his application dtd. 16/12/2013 mentioning therein that though they have not introduced any new facts as per order of amendment dtd. 20/8/2013 but the defendants had filed additional written statement by stating a new story without leave of the court. It was further submitted that and even if the defendants wanted to file the additional written statement, it could be only with regard to the amendment made by them which was allowed by the order of the learned court below dated 20th of August, 2013. The learned court below after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record rejected the additional written statement dtd. 13/9/2013 filed by the petitioners/defendants.