DAROGA PONDIT Vs. JUGESHWAR PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have come up against an order rejecting their prayer seeking to add a relief in the prayer portion of the plaint.

(2.) The facts are short and simple. The suit in question was filed for declaration that the ex parte decree in partition suit No. 212 of 1978 is illegal and liable to be cancelled. It appears that the defendants in their written statement took up an objection that the suit in question is barred on account of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add relief in view of the objection taken by the defendant in his written statement. He further asserted that the petitioners happens to be a person belonging to backward class and possesses only 4 bighas of land and their annual income is only Rs. 4000 and thus they be exempted from filing court -fee. The said prayers were rejected on the ground that the suit in question was filed in 1981 whereas the amendment petition has been filed about 5 years thereafter and accordingly the relief has become time barred.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, urged that the impugned order has been passed completely misconceiving the settled principles of law governing amendments of pleadings, Mr. Dhananjay Prasad. learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been given by the court below while passing the impugned order and thus no interference is called for by this Court.