KALPANA CHOUDHURY Vs. DEBI DAYAL CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application by two defendants is directed against the order passed by the trial Court allowing certain amendments in the plaint Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioners has stated that he is challenging by this application, only that part of the order where the court has allowed the prayer for partition to be included in the plaint.

(2.) The suit originally was filed, inter alia, for eviction of the defendants. During the pendency of the litigation, the present plaintiffs 13 to 2l claimed to be pendente lite transferees from plaintiffs 1 to 7 and 9 to 12 in respect of 95 per cent interest in the subject-matter of the suit and they were added as co-plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 who is one of the petitioners, claimed to be a transferee of 5 per cent interest of plaintiff No. 8. The added plaintiffs applied for transposition of plaintiff No. 8 to the category of defendants and for certain other amendments including a relief for partition.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh has strenuously contended that by permitting the prayer of partition to be included in the plaint, the nature of the case has undergone a change and it is not possible in the circumstances of the case to permit two wholly inconsistent pleas to be included in the plaintiff's pleading. He relied upon the decisions in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, (AIR 1922 PC 249); Divi Seshacharyulu v. Divi Lakshminarayanacharyulu, (AIR 1946 Mad 105) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham, (AIR 1965 SC 1008).