JANKI DEVI Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in the court below. Petitioner filed a suit for partition. The defendants are the other three sisters of the plaintiff. Thus, the four sisters are litigating amongst themselves. In the written statement, defendant No. 1, who is alone contesting, took the stand that the property, of which partition has been sought for, had been gifted by their mother to her son. Two applications were filed by the plaintiff. In one, the plaint was sought to be amended challenging the validity of the said gift and for additional relief in respect thereto and the second for addition of parties. Both these applications were rejected by an order dated 7.12.2005 giving rise to the present two civil revision applications. The ground for rejection is that the challenge is a belated challenge which would change the nature of suit. The contesting opposite party has appeared. The other defendants have not appeared even though validly served with notice. With consent of parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) No doubt, that the application for amendment and for addition of parties was made belatedly but it cannot be said that the same cannot be allowed as it would change the nature of case. One of the things that has to be kept in mind is avoiding multiplicity of cases. Here, the parties are the same or contesting under the same title. The dispute is in respect of the same property. It would only avoid multiplicity of suits if the amendments were to be allowed and parties added so that all disputes are settled once and for all. On behalf of opposite party No.1, it is submitted that the relief as claimed would be barred by limitation. In my view, that itself would be an issue to be tried.