LALLAN DAS Vs. DESAI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The plaintiffs have preferred this revision application against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the amendment of plaint. The partition suit having been filed, several persons intervened, several new properties were brought into the litigation, several written statements were filed by different parties. Towards the end, some parties started challenging that there had been no partition. In views of the said challenge, the petitioners filed an amendment petitioner to include an additional prayer that if the Court holds that there was no prior partition then the properties claimed to have been allotted to different persons in that partition be also subjected to partition in the present suit. In my opinion, such an amendment was necessary for a proper decision and a complete decision in respect of partition as between the parties. Regrettably, some of the defendants took objection for the sake of objection which regrettably the trial Court accepted by its lengthy order as if he was dealing with the conclusion of the Partition Suit. He has gone at length in determining the rights of various parties in respect of different properties and holding what property was liable to be partitioned and what was not liable to be partitioned. I feel sorry for the learned Judge. This was not the stage to get into such an enquiry. The question was simple whether or not to allow the amendment. It being a partition, it will be just and proper to do complete justice between the parties. All properties which were alleged to be in jointness ought to have been brought in especially when people were disputing earlier partition.

(3.) I, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow this revision application. I further direct, the trial Court to take expeditious steps to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a year as for wrong reasons, the suit has remained suspended for about ten years. Application allowed.