Indira Banerjee, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair, rejecting the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair being Title Suit No.81 of 2003 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property as specified in the plaint. In the suit the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs:- a. A decree against the defendant No.1 to 6 declaring that the Plaintiffs alongwith defendant No.7 are the rightful, and recorded owner of the Plaint scheduled property and every part thereof to the exclusion of the defendant No.1 to 6 who has no manner of right/title/interest/claim to possess/occupy/enjoy/remain or continue in occupation or enjoyment of the scheduled property. b. A decree against the defendant No.1 to 6 for recovery of peaceful possession/occupation of the land under their possession measuring 1063 Square meters and every part thereof from the defendant No.1 to 6 and for handing over physical possession of the same to the Plaintiffs. c. A decree against the defendant No.7 for recovery of peaceful possession/occupation of the land under his possession measuring 83 Square meters and every part thereof from the defendant No.7 and for handing over physical possession of the same to the Plaintiffs. d. An order directing the Tehsildar to mutate the suit land, which belonged to the said Jai Chand in the name of the plaintiffs. e. An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from undergoing any kind of construction or any kind of act amounting to dispossession of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. f. A decree against the defendant for all costs of the suit. g. A decree against the defendants for such further or other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be found entitled. The defendant No.1 and the defendant No.6 filed their respective statements and contested the suit. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed a judgement and order allowing the suit in part by granting a decree of declaration of ownership as against the defendant no.1. The suit was however dismissed as against the defendant no.6.
(3.) TWO appeals being T.A. No.01 of 2006 and T.A. No.02 of 2006 were filed from the said common judgement and order, one by the defendant no.1 and the other by the plaintiff nos. 1,2,3 and 4. After the decree the defendant no.6 died intestate leaving the Opposite Party Nos.7 to 10 in this application as his heirs and successors. The appeals were disposed of by a common judgement and order dated 23rd September, 2008 whereby the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit remanded for adjudication, with a direction on the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to inter alia incorporate, by amendment of the plaint, the relief of decree for partition.;