RAM PRASAD MAHTON Vs. BABU JAGOO MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants (Defts. 1 to 5) application against the order dated 12-12-1979 passed in Title Suit No. 18/40 of 1974, by which the amendment sought by the defendants in their written statement has been refused.

(2.) The plaintiffs have brought the suit for partition of the properties claiming the same to be their joint family properties along with the defendants. The defendant-petitioners filed written statement, and their case was that there had already been partition of the family properties and thus the suit for partition was not maintainable. Further claim of defendant No. 1 was that some of the properties were self-acquired properties.

(3.) On 22-9-1979 a petition was filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 16 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil P. C. seeking amendment in the written statement on the grounds mentioned therein, The plaintiffs' filed a rejoinder and con-tended that the amendments sought for by the defendants were fit to be rejected, The court below only held that the amendments sought for in the petition appeared to be redundant and unnecessary as according to the court below the explanation of the facts need not necessarily be stated in the pleadings. In the opinion of the court below the petition filed by the defendants was a long one which amounted to overhauling the written statement filed earlier on behalf of the defendants. It is desirable to mention here that the earlier written statement was field on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 16 but in the petition for amendments it is mentioned that it is on behalf of defendants 1 to 16. Admittedly defendants 6 to 15 had not filed their written statement and, therefore, obviously in the application filed by the defendants an error crept in and the learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the petition for amendment was filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 16 only.