MOHAN LILANI Vs. PEVI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed a suit against the non-petitioners and the same is pending before learned Additional Munsiff (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the suit the plaintiff-petitioner has made a prayer for grant of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of House No. 3/185 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. In the plaint the petitioner has stated that the said house was purchased by him in the name of his mother. He had deposited the initial installment and has made substantial payment of the price of the house to the Rajasthan Housing Board. Even then he has prayed to treat the house as joint property of the members of his family and accordingly he was entitled to l/6th share in the property. In her written statement, non-petitioner No. 1 has asserted that the disputed house belongs to' her exclusively and that plaintiff-petitioner has no right in the said house. Similar written statements have been filed by the other defendants.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, plaintiff petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for leave to amend the plaint by claiming that House No. 3/185 should be declared as his property and his other members for the family have no right over the property. However, defendant petitioners were trying to dispose of the property so that he may be deprived of the property. Defendant contested the amendment by claiming the amendment sought of by the plaintiff if allowed will change the nature of the case. They asserted that the plaintiff wanted to wriggle out of the admission made by him in the original plaint to the effect that the property was a joint property.

(3.) THE trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity. It is also not a case in which substantial failure of justice will be occasioned by refusal of the amendment. In fact injustice will be caused to the defendant-non-petitioner by acceptance of the amendment application.