Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 22.07.2013, this writ application has been preferred by the petitioners.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that one Ramdas, third son of Sukar Mahto, after death of his father came in possession of the land and sold his share in favour of Tapeshwar Mahto during his life time however, due to inadvertence in paragraph no. 7 of the written statement it has been stated that the said Ramdas died issueless and as such, his share devolved upon his two surviving brothers namely, Mahgu and Tapeshwar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said transfer has been conveyed through a registered sale deed and therefore, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amendment as sought in application dated 10.05.2013 should have been allowed by the learned trial court, as it is necessary for complete adjudication of dispute between the parties.
(3.) From the pleadings on record I find that the suit for partition was filed on 31.07.2008 and the written statement on behalf of defendant nos. 810 was filed on 25.11.2008. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the defendants were leading their evidence, application dated 10.05.2013 was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 810 seeking the following amendments: (1) "That page 3 of Para 7 in line 8 and 9 the sentence "died issue less till Tapeshwar" be allowed to be deleted and in place thereof "Ramdas sold his share to Tapeshwar Mahto" be allowed to be inserted." In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant nos. 810, do not find that the defendant nos. 810 have claimed that the Ramdas had sold his share in favour of Tapeshwar by way of a registered sale deed. The date of sale deed has not been disclosed either in the written statement or in the amendment application. Even a copy of sale deed was not produced along with the documents, if any, submitted by the defendants during the trial. The specific case pleaded by the defendant nos. 8 to 10 was that Ramdas died issueless and as such, his share devolved upon his two surviving brothers namely, Mahgu and Tapeshwar whereas, in the amendment application a different plea is sought to have been set up by defendant nos. 810 that the property was purchased by Tapeshwar from Ramdas by a registered sale deed. I find that the amendment application has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court. The amendment as sought by the petitioners/defendant nos. 810 would change the very basis of the defence taken by the petitioners and therefore, it has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court.;