Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/defendant No. 1 is aggrieved against the order dt. 19.08.2006 by which the trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to the plaintiffs, after filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiffs found that the plaintiffs committed mistake in describing the plaintiffs and defendants Hindu undivided family as Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop whereas subsequently, he came to know that the name of Joint Hindu Family was Balchand Nathuram, therefore, they may be permitted to amend the plaint so as to describe the property for which the suit for partition has been filed to be the property of Joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs having name Balchand Nathuram. That application was allowed by the trial Court and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend paras No. 1, 3 and 7. The plaintiffs also sought deletion of certain properties from the schedule of the properties annexed with the plaint and some other amendments were also sought.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiffs in fact substituted the properties of Balchand Nathuram in place of originally pleaded properties of Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop by amendment which could not have been allowed by the trial Court as that would change the entire nature of the suit and the subject matter of the suit also.;