YOGENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed against the order dtd. 12/2/2018 passed by learned Sub-Judge-IInd, Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 90 of 2003 by which the petition dtd. 23/11/2015 filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of written statement, additional written statement and counter claim was partly allowed and was partly rejected in respect of certain amendment in the additional written statement.

(2.) The facts of the case as it appears from the record is that the petitioner and respondent no.1 are full brothers. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are sons of respondent no.1 The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for partition in respect of properties said to be the joint family property in the court of learned Sub-Judge-Ist, Bhabhua on 7/5/2003 vide Title Suit No. 90 of 2003. Petitioner is defendant no.1. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of late Shyam Sunder Singh.

(3.) Further, the case of the petitioner is that plaintiffs filed petition for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed by the learned court below by order dtd. 3/8/2004 with an option to the defendants to file additional written statement. Accordingly, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed an additional written statement on 22/11/2004 in respect of amended portion of the plaint controverting the allegations and statements of the plaintiffs added in amended paragraph nos. 12 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga' and 'Aga' of the plaint. But due to inadvertence some wrong and contradictory statements came to be included in the additional written statement. The petitioner has also filed counter claim in the said suit in addition to his written statement and additional written statement in respect of left over properties of the plaintiffs in the plaint. On 23/11/2015, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment of written statement, additional statement and counter claim under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. in order to correct inadvertent mistakes in the pleadings. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a rejoinder dtd. 29/2/2016 to the said amendment petition dtd. 23/11/2015. After hearing the parties, the learned court below by impugned order dtd. 12/2/2018 allowed the proposed amendment in written statement and counter claim with cost of Rs.3,000.00 but refused to allow amendment in the additional written statement. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dtd. 12/2/2018 rejecting the aforesaid amendment.