DHANBANTI DEVI Vs. SITARAM MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 22.07.2013, this writ application has been preferred by the petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that one Ramdas, third son of Sukar Mahto, after death of his father came in possession of the land and sold his share in favour of Tapeshwar Mahto during his life time however, due to inadvertence in paragraph no. 7 of the written statement it has been stated that the said Ramdas died issueless and as such, his share devolved upon his two surviving brothers namely, Mahgu and Tapeshwar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said transfer has been conveyed through a registered sale deed and therefore, in view of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, the amendment as sought in application dated 10.05.2013 should have been allowed by the learned trial court, as it is necessary for complete adjudication of dispute between the parties.

(3.) From the pleadings on record I find that the suit for partition was filed on 31.07.2008 and the written statement on behalf of defendant nos. 810 was filed on 25.11.2008. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the defendants were leading their evidence, application dated 10.05.2013 was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 810 seeking the following amendments: