MADAN LAL Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 25/10/2005 of the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh allowing the application for amendment of the plaintiff respondent in a partition suit filed on 20/7/2005 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) BY the said application seeking amendments in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed addition of one more relief in the plaint to the effect that in the alternative the agriculture land situated at Pratapgarh-Bagwas Road on the southern side of the house of Bohra Jakiudeen may be handed over to him.

(3.) ON the other hand. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff submitted that the claim of alternative relief by way of addition of one more prayer in the suit does not prejudice the defendants in any manner and such amendment, in the interest of justice, has rightly been allowed by the learned trial court. He submitted that the issues with regard to said agriculture land have already been framed by the learned trial court as issue nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, even though the agriculture land was not sought to be partitioned in the main suit itself, on the basis of special plea raised by the defendants in their written statement and rejoinder filed by the plaintiff, the said amendment has been rightly allowed by the learned trial court. He further submitted that there is no delay in filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and relying on the judgments in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K.K. Modi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 385, G. Nagamma and Anr. v. Siromanamma and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 25 and Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr., JT 2006 (7) SC 139, he submitted that at the stage of plaintiff's evidence such amendment could be allowed by the learned trial court.