Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dt. 29.04.2008 passed by the trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been dismissed. The petitioner -plaintiff filed a suit for partition; in the plaint, certain properties were indicated and it was also indicated that as the petitioner is a widow and is unaware about the joint family properties, she reserves her right to amend the plaint and include the properties as and when she becomes aware of the same. After plaintiff's evidence was over and defendants' evidence was in progress, an application under Order VIII, Rule 1A C.P.C. came to be filed by the defendants, wherein, certain documents were sought to be produced; the said documents contained reference relating to certain properties, which were not subject matter of the suit and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint based on information received by her from the documents produced by the defendants. The said application was opposed by the defendants.
(2.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the requirement of Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. did not exist in the matter; it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been diligent enough and, therefore, was not entitled to amendment; it was also of the opinion that a fresh suit can also be filed and, consequently, dismissed the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that looking to the status of the petitioner that she was a widow and was pitted against her brother -in -laws; had very little information about the joint family properties and the documents were deliberately disclosed by the defendants at the stage of their evidence, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to include the said properties as subject matter of the suit so as to seek partition of the said properties also; it was submitted that if the amendment as sought was not granted, the petitioner would be deprived of her share in the said properties and the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; it was submitted that the trial Court has observed that the separate suit may be filed and the basic purpose of permitting an amendment i.e. avoiding multiplicity of suits would be frustrated and, therefore, also, the amendment should have been accepted by the trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer; it was submitted that the application was filed belatedly and the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue the suit open endedly so as to include the properties as and when she desires and, therefore, the application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.;