NAND KISHORE SHARMA Vs. LAL BABU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is the sole plaintiff in Partition Suit No. 457/1998 and is aggrieved by order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Vaishali, by which he had rejected part of the petition for amendment of his plaint. The petitioner sought five amendments in the plaint out of which amendment numbers 1 and 3 were allowed whereas amendment numbers 2, 4 and 5 with respect to Paragraph-6 (facts), Paragraph-14 (valuation) and Paragraph-15 (relief) were rejected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that in Paragraph-6 of his plaint the amendment sought is only for adding a word "Hissa batakar" and for substituting the words "Ko Ataikar diya" with "Ke naam Atainama likhwa diya". He further contended that in Paragraph-14 of the plaint he wanted to add the valuation of the suit as well as the Court fees payable thereon, according to the addition of relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in Paragraph-15 of the plaint he wanted to add a further relief for declaration of "Ateinama" dated 4.6.1986 by Lalpari Devi in favour of Shiv Dulari Devi as void and also for change of share from half (1/2) to 7/18th. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought in Paragraph-6 of the plaint was only formal in nature whereas the relief sought to be added was already supported by the facts mentioned in the plaint and that the valuation and the court-fees have to be legally enhanced in view of the amendment in relief sought The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1267 which held that relief can not be denied to be added by way of amendment. He further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Siyaram Kuwar @ Siyaram Kumar v. Mahendra Kumar and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 921, in which it was held that by amendment a different approach to the same matter can be added. He also submitted that evidence of the parties has started and he is yet to produce his evidence and even the evidence of the defendants has not been closed. He further contended that no question of limitation is attracted in the instant matter as the entire fact has already been mentioned in the original plaint itself. He also contended that the amendment sought is necessary for full, proper and final adjudication of the suit.