UMA SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. BACHCHAJL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision-application is directed against the order dated 22. 2. 94 passed by the 5th Subordinate Judge, Arrah in T. S. No. 188/93 where by the Court has refused the prayer or the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The said suit has been instituted by the petitioner for declaration of his title over the entire suit property and also for a declaration that the sale-deeds dated 9. 10. 82 executed Ram Ekbal Pandey and dated 14. 9. 83 executed by Ramrati kuer in favour of the defendant in respect of the property detailed in schedules II and III, respectively of the plaint are illegal, void and inoperative and not binding on him. Further, the petitioner has also sought for a decree of recovery of possession to the property detailed in Schedule IV of the plaint.

(2.) The petitioner seems to have filed the suit claiming to be the adopted son of Ram Ekbal Pandey and it was specifically pleaded by him that his date of birth was 23. 12. 1978, on the basis of which he was admittedly minor in July, 1993 when the suit was instituted. After the issue of summons the defendant opposite party appeared in the said suit whereafter, a petition under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. read with Section 151, C. P. C. was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the aforementioned date of birth by deleting 23. 12. 1978 as the date of birth from paragraph 7 of the plaint and substituting 23. 12. 72 in its place.

(3.) A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the opposite party to the said amendment petition and after hearing the parties me prayer for amendment has been rejected by the impugned order.