The court ruled that a lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of details when relevant parties are present, and amendments to pleadings are necessary for addressing all issues.

JUDGMENT :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the private individuals and the Banks. Suit is filed for relief of injunction to restrain defendants No.3 to 7 (Banks) from operating the Bank account standing in the name of deceased B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan and also to restrain the individual defendants from removing the gold ornaments kept in the safe deposit lockers in the aforementioned Banks in the name of deceased B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan.

2. The suit is dismissed on the premise that the details of the Bank lockers and the Savings Bank accounts are also not furnished. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, inviting the attention of the Court to the facts of the case would submit that earlier, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No.7874/2001 for partition against her father, mother, brother and sister. Said suit was dismissed on the premise that the suit is not maintainable when the father is alive and later an appeal was filed. During the pendency of appeal in RFA No.583/2009, father died and the Court awarded share taking into consideration, the subsequent development after the filing of the suit. Later, in final decree proceeding in FDP No.104/2015, the parties entered into settlement in respect of the properties held by the father.

4. There was no partition in respect to the properties held by the mother. Thereafter, the mother died and the daughter/plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction to restrain the brother and sister from operating the account held by the mother.

5. The suit is dismissed on the premise that the plaintiff has not furnished the details of the Bank account and the locker account held by the mother and application is filed before this Court to amend the plaint and to seek relief of partition in respect of the properties standing in the name of the mother.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents would submit that no account and no locker existed in the name of the mother as such, the suit is not maintainable and Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for want of necessary particulars.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondents would also oppose the application seeking amendment on the premise that the relief sought is time barred and it would change the nature of the suit and amendment application at this stage is not maintainable.

8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

9. Following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit for want of particulars when the Banks are made parties to the proceeding?

(ii) Whether the appellant has made out a case to amend the plaint and to seek a relief of partition in a suit for injunction?

10. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is daughter of B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan, and said B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan died intestate. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction on the apprehension that her brother and sister would operate the locker and the Bank account of her mother and accordingly brother and sister are made parties. In addition, the Banks are also made parties. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the premise that particulars of the Bank accounts are not furnished.

11. The Court is of view that the approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. Since the Banks are parties to the proceeding and represented by the counsel, the C