GOPAL PRASAD Vs. LAKSHMI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. The petitioners are defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit. They have prayed for quashing the order dated 23-6-2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 76 of 1996 by which the learned Court below rejected the petitioners' application dated 13-2-2004 praying for amendment in the written statement.

(2.) The learned trial Court after hearing the parties has rejected the prayer for amendment of the written statement by the order impugned on the ground that the amendment sought for is not consistent with the plea taken in the original written statement and the right of the other parties should not get defeated by way of amendment and that the amendment would cause injury to the plaintiff and defendant No. 3.

(3.) Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the properties were purchased several years ago by their father, therefore, they were not fully aware of the family affairs of Shankar Sao and they came to know through a power of attorney that there had been a partition between Annu Sao and Mathura Sao. Accordingly, the said petition for amendment of the written statement was filed which should be allowed in the interest of justice and for proper decision of the case. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (AIR 1969 SC 1267) and G. Nagamma v. Sirornanarnma [(1996) 2 SCC 25].