The companytesting respondent number.
THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Honble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Sushil Kumar Jain, Pradeep Aggarwal, A.P. Dhamija, Advs.
It appears that thereafter the suit remained pending for trial for number of years.
learned Trial Judge was number inclined to accept the reasons put forward for moving such an amendment application at such a late stage and that too for getting out of the admissions made by defendant number.
In the light of the aforesaid admitted position between the parties qua these properties the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of a receiver in companynection with 7 admitted properties in Schedule A. It was at that stage and that too after a passage of about 18 months from the moving of such application for appointment of receiver by the appellant that defendant number1 came forward with an amendment application to amend his written statement.
In that case a suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming a decree for Rs.
On the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by the companytesting parties in the written statement, issues were framed by the Trial Court.
1,30,000/ against the defendants.
The first defendant carried the matter in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure CPC before the High Court.
for the appellant K. Goel, and Mrs. Sheela Goel, Advs.
Such amendment was rejected by the Trial Court and the said rejection was affirmed by the High Court in Revision.
1 and 2 in companynection with the relevant suit properties.
The defendants in their written statement admitted that by virtue of an agreement date 07th April 1967 the plaintiff worked as their stockist cum distributor.
Not only that but in para 11 of the written statement it was submitted that the plaintiff is only entitled for partition regarding the properties of Schedule A except items 4,9 and 10 and all the properties mentioned in Schedule B. They also stated in the said para 11 of the written statement that so far as admitted properties were companycerned, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share and remaining 2/3rd share belonged to defendant number.
Meaning thereby that the other seven properties listed in Schedule A were admitted to be joint family properties.
for the Respondents.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant as well as learned advocate for respondent number.
1 and 2.
Appellant Plaintiff had filed a civil suit for partition of 10 items of immovable properties mentioned in schedule A of the plaint and also for partition of other properties listed in Schedule B of the plaint.
After three years the defendants by application under order Vi Rule 17 sought amendment of written statement by substituting paragraphs 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea that plaintiff was mercantile agent cum purchaser, meaning thereby they sought to go behind their earlier admission that plaintiff was stockist cum distributor.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted.
Obviously this issue was framed in the light of the admission of the companytesting defendants in the written statement that rest of the items listed in Schedule A were joint family properties wherein the plaintiff had a share along with the defendants.
The appeal was taken up for final disposal forthwith by their companysent.
1 and 2, who are original defendant number.
1 and 2.
In the written statement a definite stand was taken by the companytesting defendants that out of the listed properties in Schedule A only three properties at items 4,9 and 10 were exclusively belonging to the companytesting defendants and were number joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant number.
1 and 2, who are defendant number.1 and 2 in the suit, being real brothers of the plaintiff filed a joint written statement on 01st October 1993 in the Trial Court.
1 and 2 and are the only companytesting parties in this appeal.
The suit was filed in 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Bundi for partition of the suit properties mentioned in diverse schedules annexed to the plaint.
