- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2013 in Title Suit No. 228 of 2002 whereby, application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 228 of 2002. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 7 filed written statement on 12.9.2003 resisting the relief sought by the plaintiffs. In the pending suit, application dated 23.8.2011 was filed seeking amendment in the written statement by incorporating paragraph No. 5A
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have specifically denied the claim of partition on the ground that only the legal heirs of Balbhadra Rai are the absolute owner of the suit property. It is submitted that the defendants found some papers pertaining to rent eviction suit which would disclose that Balbhadra Rai paid the entire dues and the entire jote was restored with Balbhadra Rai vide order dated 9.10.1941. The petitioners thereafter filed application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement which has erroneously been rejected by the Trial Court.
(3.) In application dated 23.8.2011 the defendants sought incorporation of an additional paragraph which is extracted below:--- "That the entire suit property had been evicted due arrears of rent passed in Rent Eviction Case No. 294 of 1937 passed by 3rd Court Deoghar, subsequently Balbhadra Rai had paid the en-fire dues in rent execution case No. 261 of 1940 as such learned S.D.O. has resorted the entire Jote with Balbhadra Rai thus Balbhadra Rai became the full, absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property.";