SAVITRA KUER Vs. SUNIL PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge VI, Sasaram, Rohtas in Title Suit No. 336 of 2017 whereby he has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs-respondent 1st set under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for making certain amendments in the plaint.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a co-sharer and family member of the plaintiffs and as such she has a right in the suit property being widow of late Ganesh Pandey, but the plaintiffs have filed a petition on 13.03.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC before the trial court for amendment in para 9 of the plaint, which has been allowed by the trial court vide impugned order whereby the petitioner is shown as sister-in-law of the defendant Murli Pandey. He submitted that the contention made in the amendment petition is absolutely wrong as the petitioner is legally wedded wife of Late Ganesh Pandey and she is not sister-in-law of defendant Murli Pandey. The amendment sought by the plaintiffs was mischievous and the court below ought to have rejected the same.