GOURI SHANKAR JAIN Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed beyond time. There is delay of 33 days. Application (I.A. No. 5756/99) has been filed for condonation of delay. The opposite party has filed counter affidavit controverting the statements made in the limitation petition. In the facts and circumstances, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the delay in filing the revision is condoned and the application is allowed.

(2.) ANOTHER application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for addition of the left out defendants 3 in number, as opposite second party. The prayer is again opposed by the opposite party. It has been submitted that if the main civil revision itself is time barred, there is no question of adding any other person as opposite party. Considering the fact that the persons who were sought to be added as opposite second party are co -defendants and thus formal party, and that the delay in filing the civil revision has been condoned above, this application is also allowed. Madan Lal Jain, Kailash Jain and Premlal Jain are ordered to be added as opposite party nos. 6 to 8. ''opposite second party.

(3.) C , 8A, 21A, 21B and 21C and a new schedule namely, Schedule 'G ' containing the description of additional items of property, have been added in the plaint and the suit valuation has been increased from Rs. 78,41,000/ - to Rs. 40,21,60,000/ -. in the introductory paragraph of the application filed in the court below, which was labelled under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs stated that the amendment was being sought in view of the defendants ' plea regarding nonjoinder of Smt. Sarswati Devi and also in view of certain inadvertent typing mistakes and omissions in the plaint and also on account of subsequent acquisitions out of the joint family funds. Feeling aggrieved by the order the defendant no.2 has come in revision to this Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit (Title suit No. 16/78) for partition of properties detailed in schedules 'A ' to 'F of the plaint. Since the amendment, of which grievance has been made, relates to addition of additional items of property and no alteration otherwise has been brought about in the plaint, it is not necessary to state the plaintiffs ' case except to mention that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are full brothers being sons of Khem Raj Jain. The other plaintiffs/defendants are their respective sons. According to the plaintiffs the joint family owns immovable properties of different kind at different places besides movables and joint family business mentioned in the schedules. On account of the financial mis -management and misappropriation of income at the hands of the defendants, the relationship between them became sour. They demanded partition and on refusal, filed the suit. According to the defendants ' case on 16.10.71 there was a partial partition and the joint family status came to an end. This was followed by a complete partition of the properties on 23.11.76. The defendants also alleged misappropriation at the hands of the plaintiffs with respect to the properties which had remained joint after partial partition of 1971, and further stated that some items of property had not been included in the suit while such items would never belonged to the erstwhile joint family, had been included.