SATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. DEVI KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned advocate for the plaintiffs-petitioners.

(2.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-VIIth, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Title Suit No.30/ 2003 R 2483/ 2014 as contained in Annexure-4, by which he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.).

(3.) Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has not considered the provisions of the C.P.C. while rejecting the application filed under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. It failed to appreciate that pleading can be amended at any stage for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy in between the parties. He has pleaded that the trial Court also failed to appreciate that the claim of the plaintiffs is that the sale deed dated 15.09.1962 executed in favour of defendant no.3 is a joint family property, which was acquired in exchange of land whereas the claim of the defendant no.3 is that it was self-acquired property, therefore, for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy in between the parties, the proposed amendments are necessary.