- (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the VIth Sub-Ordinate Judge, Civil Court, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 143/06 whereby the application submitted by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as respondents and perused the order passed by the court-below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court- below has not properly considered the provisions as contained in Order VI Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby committed an error while passing the said order. It is further submitted that the proposed amendments are formal in nature and if allowed the same shall not change the nature and character of the suit. Purchasers are the necessary party hence they may be allowed to be impleaded in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has referred to and relied upon various judgments, reported in BBCJ 1997 575; 1998 (2) PLJR 596; AIR 1968 MADRAS 142 (V 55 C 32); 2010 (1) JCR
(3.) (SC); 2008 (2) JLJR 46 (SC); AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2832; AIR 2007 DELHI 48; 2003 (1) JCR 283 (SC). 5. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court-below after careful consideration of the submissions made before it passed a reasoned order and thereby rejected the application preferred by the petitioners seeking amendment in the plaint. It is further submitted that the court-below has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the said order and therefore, no intervention of this Court is required at all. It is further submitted that the Article 59 of the Limitation Act is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case and the court-below has taken note of the submissions made in this regard while rejecting the application made by the plaintiffs-petitioners. It is further submitted that Section 84 of the CNT Act is also required to be considered while dealing with the present petition. It is further submitted that the written statement was filed in the year 2006 and thereafter the amendment petition was moved in the year 2011, thus, the application for amendment was submitted at the belated stage. Therefore, the court-below has rightly rejected the said application. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petition has no merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that the judgment is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the present petitioners (original plaintiffs) moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint. On perusal of the order, passed by the court-below, it appears that the court-below has considered all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and has also properly dealt with the issue involved in the said application. It appears that the written statement was filed in the year 2006 and the amendment petition was filed in the year 2011, therefore, the application for amendment was submitted at the belated stage. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the plaintiff has filed suit for partition. The application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff to add the purchasers as the plaintiff came to know about transaction from the written statement filed by the defendant in the year 2006. On perusal of the papers, it appears that this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs before institution of the suit as the transfer of property took place prior to the institution of the suit and therefore, it was open to the plaintiffs at the time of institution of the case or even after institution of the suit at the initial stage. On perusal of the order, it appears that court-below has considered various rulings cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and thereafter rejected the said application. This Court is of the view that the court-below has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the various judgments, referred hereinabove. On perusal of these judgments, it appears that the said judgments were delivered in different set of facts and circumstances, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. Moreover, this Court found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to applicability and effect of the Article 59 of the Limitation Act as well as Section 84 of the CNT Act.;