SOBHANADRI APPA RAO Vs. VENKATARAMAYYA APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107 of the Government of India Act to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada refusing to allow one of the amendments of the plaint prayed for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs applied for two amendments one of which has been allowed but the other was disallowed; and it is against the latter order that the plaintiffs have come up in revision.

(2.) The plaintiffs wanted to add in the plaint a statement that there was no final and completed partition and that they were, therefore, entitled to claim a fresh partition; it is this amendment that has been disallowed.

(3.) Under Order 6, Rule 17 all such amendments should be allowed as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to allow the amendment in question here, because he thought that the amendment was not likely to raise a case which would succeed if tried and because the amendment was asked for at a very late stage of the case. The Subordinate Judge has also observed that the amendment now applied for is inconsistent with the case set out in the plaint which proceeds on the footing that there was a partition. These grounds, it seems to me, are not sufficient to support his order. No doubt, the plaint has proceeded on the footing that there was no partition and then saying that, if there was one, that partition was invalid for reasons stated. The fact that the present amendment seeks to state a case in the alternative with the case already set out in the plaint is not a ground for disallowing it.