MALTI DEVI Vs. GARIB DAS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THB civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiff -decree -holder -petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 13.6.2005 by which the learned Subordinate Judge -I, Munger, rejected their petition for amendment in the plaint and also for making correction in the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1964.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the petitioner for partition of the suit properties and the same was decreed on 13.9.1972 and preliminary decree was prepared against which First Appeal No. 31 of 1973. was filed. But this Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned court below. From the materials on record including the impugned order it is quite clear that two petitions dated 27.7.1966 and 29.7.1966 were filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, out of which the first one was with respect to amendment in the genealogy as given in Schedule -A of the plaint whereas the second one was with respect to addition of some more lands in Schedule -B of the plaint and also to change in the valuation of the suit property. It transpires that on 29.7.1966 only amendment petition dated 27.7.1966 was considered and allowed and the amendment sought therein was incorporated in the plaint also but neither there was any order with respect to the amendment petition dated 29.7.1966 nor the said amendment was ever incorporated in the plaint. Hence, the suit was decreed accordingly in the year 1972 and preliminary decree was also confirmed by this Court.

(3.) IT further transpires that much thereafter on 22.12.2001 a petition was filed by the petitioner under the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree incorporating the amendment sought vide afore - said amendment petition dated 29.7.1966 with respect to addition of land and enhancement of valuation of the suit. After considering the said matter in detail, the learned court below rejected the said petition by order dated 23.6.2004 (Annexure -6). It transpires that the aforesaid order dated 23.6.2004 was challenged by the plaintiff - decree -holder in Civil Revision No. 947 of 2004 in which after argument petitioner 'scounsel sought permission to withdraw the revision to unable them to file a petition tor review in the court below and hence the said Civil Revision was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2005 (Annexure -1). It transpires that thereafter the petitioner filed a petition dated 2.3.2005 for review of the earlier order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the learned court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below dismissed the said review petition by the impugned order dated 13.6.2005.