SATLAL MAHTO Vs. RUDLAL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application for amendment in the plaint was preferred by the petitioner, who is the original plaintiff and partly the said application was allowed and partly it was rejected. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application was not allowed to be amended and, them fore, the present petition has been preferred. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application are as under:

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the amendment, sought for, in the plaint by the original plaintiff in Partition Suit No. 48 of 2009, affects the very root of the case. Properties referred in amendment are the suit properties. Moreover, by amending the plaint, no prejudice is going to cause to the original defendants. Looking to the nature of amendment, it will facilitate the trial court to arrive at correct decision of the dispute between the parties.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts, the amendment application is allowed to the extent to which it was rejected by the trial court and, hence, the order passed by the Sub -Judge -VI, Hazaribagh dated 15th January, 2011 in Partition Suit No. 48 of 2009 is partly quashed to the extent to which the amendment application preferred by the original plaintiff is rejected. Amendment, in the original plaint, shall be carried out as early as possible by the' original plaintiff. The Partition Suit No. 48 of 2009 will be disposed of as early as possible and practicable.