Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Grievance of the petitioners is, that at the stage of final argument in Partition Suit No. 78 of 2005 application for amendment in the plaint has been allowed. The petitioners seek to challenge order dated 18-4-2009 passed in Partition Suit No. 78 of 2005, whereby the aforesaid application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., has been allowed.
(2.) Plaintiffs instituted Partition Suit No. 78 of 2005 seeking partition of the ancestral land. The suit schedule land comprised Bakast Bhuinhari, Bhuinhari Mundai and Kaime lands. This third type of land is stated to be acquired by individual members on occupancy rights. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement asserting that Bakast Bhuinhari and Service lands which are described under Schedule 'A' land and Schedule 'B' are exempted under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. They have also raised objections to description of the defendants in the plaint. It appears that the suit schedule Property is the ancestral Bhuinhari land belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants, both, as per Bhuinhari Land Survey, 1869-1880 and Cadestrial Survey 1908-1911, which were admitted as correct. After both the parties led their evidence and the suit was pending for final argument, an application for amendment, dated 22.02.2009 was filed by the plaintiffs for the following amendment in the plaint : "11(a) that all the defendants converted into Christian religion and a Christian is not eligible to worship Mundai Bhuinhari land and other lands of Bhut Puja and Parbhara." This application has been allowed by the order, dated 18.04.2009. This is the order which has been challenged by the defendants in the present proceeding.
(3.) Mr. Kaustav Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without visualizing the effect of the proposed amendment in the pending partition suit, application dated 22.02.2009 filed under Order VI, Rule 17 has been allowed. Effect of the proposed amendment would be that in the suit, the Court would venture to a roving enquiry whether the persons who have adopted Christianity are eligible to worship Mundai Bhuinhari land and other lands of Bhutpuja and Parbhara or not. Such an enquiry in a partition suit is wholly unwarranted. Finally, it is submitted that effect of the amendment would be that nature of suit would change. Petitioner has relied on decision in "J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 2 SCC 300".;