RAMASWAMY IYANGER Vs. SAMPATH IYANGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-plaintiff in his civil suit in O.S.No.262/2005 for a decree of partition and separate possession of the subject property having suffered a decree of dismissal has filed R.A.No.213/2013 in which his application Nos.6 and 7 respectively filed for amendment of his plaint for introducing additional property to the suit schedule and for impleadment of its buyer as a respondent have been rejected by the Court below vide separate orders dated 1.4.2016. The respondents after service of notice have entered appearance through their counsel who resist the writ petitions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner after mentioning about earlier decreeing of the suit and its remand for not including all the properties and also for not impleading all the parties submits that he had filed the amended plaint making all the family members as parties to the suit; the suit having been dismissed the appeal in R.A.213/2013 has been pending against the same wherein his application filed for including his separate property that was sold on 6.4.1998 in the suit and his another application for impleading the buyer of the said property could not have been negatived by the lower Appellate Court. He further submits that the rejection of these applications virtually sealed the fate of his said appeal to his detriment. So arguing he seeks allowing of the writ petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and the buyer of the above property per contra submits that the petitioner ought to have availed the earliest opportunity of including the subject property in the partition suit and of arraying the buyer of the said property as a party to the suit; this opportunity he did not avail even after his earlier partition decree having been set at naught, the suit was remanded for trial afresh by the lower Appellate Court; after suffering the decree again he has preferred the appeal in which his two applications having been filed for the said purpose have been rightly rejected. So contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.