Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Masood Shareef.
For the Respondent: Dr. R.S. Sundaram.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration of his share in the property, along with a prayer for partition, possession, and injunction. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the claim (!) .

2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint, which included amendments to the schedule of the property and certain paragraphs. The trial court allowed this amendment and permitted consequential amendments to the defendant’s pleadings (!) .

3. The defendant moved to amend her written statement further, including adding new paragraphs. The trial court partly allowed this, permitting amendments only to specific paras and granting liberty to move separate applications for other amendments (!) .

4. The defendant later moved to add a particular paragraph (para 37A) to the written statement, which the trial court allowed. The plaintiff then sought to respond to this new paragraph by amending her pleadings, but the trial court rejected this application, citing that it was not consequential and that the plaintiff could only respond through evidence (!) .

5. The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s application to amend her pleadings, asserting that the amendment was a response to the defendant’s amendment and was not a consequential one. They relied on principles that generally permit parties to amend pleadings in response to amendments by the other side, especially when liberty has been granted (!) (!) .

6. The respondent’s counsel contended that the amendments made were merely clarifications or averments supporting existing pleadings and that further amendments were unnecessary or impermissible without new pleadings. They emphasized that amendments should not introduce new pleas unless properly permitted (!) .

7. The court observed that the trial court had granted liberty for amendments that were consequential but had denied permission for amendments that were not consequential, specifically regarding paragraph 37A. The subsequent application to amend was allowed, recognizing that the amendments were necessary for a fair adjudication of the case (!) .

8. The court reiterated the legal principle that when a party is permitted to amend pleadings, the opposite party should also be allowed to amend in response, especially if the amendments are consequential. It emphasized that amendments should not introduce new pleas or facts unless explicitly permitted (!) (!) .

9. The court found that the trial court was not justified in refusing the plaintiff’s application to amend her pleadings in response to the defendant’s amendment of paragraph 37A. The rejection was deemed a material irregularity, and the court set aside the order and allowed the application (!) (!) .

10. The final order directed the trial to be expedited, with a timeline set for the conclusion of the proceedings, and the writ petition was allowed accordingly (!) (!) .

11. Overall, the decision underscores that amendments made in response to other pleadings, especially when granted liberty, should be permitted to ensure a just adjudication, and the court’s refusal to allow such amendments can be challenged as irregular or improper (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal insights.