GHASIA MURMU Vs. CHHOTO AMPA MURMU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the original Plaintiff in Title (Partition) Suit No. 9 of 2002 against the order passed by learned Sub Judge -I, Ghatshila dated 29th August, 2006, whereby, the application preferred by the original Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be read with Section 151 thereof as well as under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) submitted that the Plaintiff is a rustic villager and, as such, due to ignorance two properties were not included in Schedule A of the plaint, as stated in paragraph 1 of the amendment application. Moreover, one more party i.e. Parbati, who is sister of Defendant No. 1, is to be joined as Defendant No. 5 (A). The amendment application is at Annexure -1 to the memo of the present writ petition. If this amendment application is not allowed, there will not be a correct partition of the property of the suit and, therefore, in the interest of justice, this amendment application may kindly be allowed, even by imposing some reasonable cost.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the nature of the amendment application, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the present petition, it appears that the present Petitioner wants to amend Schedule A of the plaint because two properties were not included in Schedule A of the plaint. Moreover, one co -sharer, namely, Parbati, who is sister of original Defendant No. 1, is to be joined as party Defendant No. 5(A). Looking to the nature of amendment application, it appears that if it is not allowed, the trial court may not arrive at a correct decision about the partition of the properties between the parties. The application has been preferred on 4th April, 2006 for amendment as well as for joining party. There is some delay in preferring this application, but, looking to the nature of the amendment, it appears that in the interest of justice, it will be very much necessary to allow the amendment of the plaint. I, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by learned Sub Judge -I, Ghatshila dated 29th August, 2006 in Title (Partition) Suit No. 9 of 2002 and allow the amendment application, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the present petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand). This amount will be deposited by the Petitioner/original Plaintiff in Title (Partition) Suit No. 9 of 2002 before the trial court, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order and upon proper application preferred by the original Defendants, this amount is permitted to be withdrawn.