BHUKHAL MAHATO Vs. SHANTI MAHATAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dated 31.08.2015 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.43 of 2005 by which amendment in the plaint has been allowed, defendant no.1 has approached this Court.

(2.) Title (Partition) Suit No.43 Of 2005 Was Instituted for a preliminary decree of partition claiming 1/6th share each in scheduleA, scheduleB and scheduleC properties and for appointment of a Surveyknowing Pleader Commissioner for allotment of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties. When the suit was posted for argument an application dated 06.01.2015 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment in paragraph nos.14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 on the ground of grammatical mistakes which have crept in those paragraphs of the plaint. This application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that if the proposed amendments are allowed the nature and character of the suit would change.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the plaintiff who is the daughter of late Suku Mahato has admitted that there was a partition of the share of late Suku Mahato, in the garb of grammatical mistake in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to plead a new case. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the proposed amendments would amount to withdrawal of admission by the plaintiff in the plaint. Another ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that at the stage of final hearing of the suit, considering the nature of the proposed amendments the trial Judge has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it.