ORDER

1.LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT FILED SEEKING PARTITION OF JOINT HINDU PROPERTIES HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY HIM PRAYING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT. THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND THE PLAINT AND ADD THERETO CERTAIN MORE PROPERTIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, WERE ALSO LIABLE TO PARTITION. IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA AVERRED IN THE APPLICATION THAT ONLY AFTER FILING OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT, DID HE COME TO KNOW THAT THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE SOUGHT TO BE ADDED TO THE PLAINT ARE ANCESTRAL JOINT HINDU PROPERTIES. THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION HAVING BEEN DISMISSED AND SO ALSO THE REVISION PETITION BY THE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE THIS COURT CHALLENGING THOSE ORDERS. THE SUIT IS AT THE INITIAL STAGE. ISSUES HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN FRAMED. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPERTIES SOUGHT TO BE ADDED ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES OF THE DEFENDANT AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES AND THUS ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE PARTITIONED IS NOT RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT. WE ARE ALSO UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT THAT TH