The said order of the Trial Court was questioned by Defendant No.
Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit.
1 to 5 and Defendants Nos.
4 and 1/6th share to Plaintiff No.
The appellant herein was Plaintiff No.
1 is the transposed Plaintiff No.
The Defendant Nos.
Consequently, the suit being O.S. No.
6 before the High Court by filing RFA No.
The Trial Court, however, proceeded to allow the application for amendment by the order dated 14.11.2008, which came to be set aside by the High Court by the impugned order dated 09.04.2010.
1 to 3, companytending that the plaintiffs and defendants had divided the joint family and ancestral properties as per the memorandum of partition dated 18.05.1972 under the Panchayat Parikath.
1 to 5, including the appellant herein, filed the said suit seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties to the extent of 1/6th share to Plaintiff Nos.
Initially, only three defendants were made parties to the suit.
6 in the suit.
After remand, Plaintiff Nos.
1 herein and the other two companytesting defendants, i.e. Defendant Nos.
6 in the suit.
Thereafter, on 01.09.2008, Plaintiff Nos.
However, after prolonged adjournments, PW2 made himself available and was crossexamined on 12.02.2008.
The companypromise petition came to be filed in the Trial Court on 22.04.1993.
2611/1993 was restored on the file of the Trial Court.
Plaintiff Nos.
1 herein adduced evidence on 02.07.2003 and was thoroughly crossexamined by Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5.
However, Plaintiff No.
1 expired during the pendency of the appeal herein and her legal heirs have been brought on record .
Immediately upon the appearance of Defendant Nos.
4 to 6, who also belong to the same family as the persons mentioned above, having companye to know about the filing of the companypromise petition in the suit for partition, and also having companye to know that they were number parties to the suit, filed an application for impleadment and opposed the companypromise petition, companytending specifically that the joint family properties had number been divided at any point of time and that the family, as well as its properties, companytinued to be joint.
297/1994 and after hearing, the High Court set aside the order dated 04.06.1994.
1 to 5 made an application being I.A. No.
The present Respondent No.
1 in the suit being S No.
It is relevant to numbere that Plaintiff Nos.
6/Respondent No.
Respondent No.
4 and 5 objected to the amendment application, companytending inter alia that the application for amendment of the plaint is number only highly belated but also number bona fide, and that at numberpoint of time was there any partition among the family members.
However, the Trial Court vide order dated 04.06.1994 dismissed the suit as having been companypromised.
1 tried to give evidence as PW2, he did number make himself available for crossexamination from 2003 to 2007.
1 to 3, a companypromise petition was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Nos.
The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits.
1 to 3, 1/6th share to Plaintiff No.
1 to 5 did number adduce any evidence initially.
Consequently, he was discharged by the Trial Court.
6 was transposed as Plaintiff No.
They had filed a joint memorandum for the dismissal of the suit on 22.04.1993, which was within one or two months of the filing of the suit.
1 to 3 were the only parties.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
1 to 5 and Defendant Nos.
2611/1993 filed seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties.
After remand, the original Defendant No.
The order dated 09.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.
1 have accepted the order rejecting the amendment application.
2266 of 2009 GMCPC by the High Court of Karnataka is called in question in this appeal.
Hence, this appeal by the unsuccessful Plaintiff No.
