An order allowing an amendment of a written statement is not appealable unless it affects the rights of the other party or otherwise prejudices him.

( 1 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Roy on behalf of respondent No. 3 that this appeal is not maintainable. In my opinion, the objection ought to prevail.

( 2 ) THE appeal is against an order of Mallick, J. , dated 19-3-1957, whereby he allowed respondent No. 3, Sm. Suprova Dutta, to amend her written statement in a Partition Suit to which she had been added as a party some time after its institution. The appellant, who is another of the defendants in the Partition Suit, contended before the learned trial Judge that the amendment ought not to be allowed and, having failed with his objection there, has now appealed.

( 3 ) THE subject-matter of the Partition Suit is the estate left by one Jogendra Lal Dutt, who died intestate on 21-10-1926, without leaving any will. He left him surviving five sons, namely, Jitendra, Rabindra, Narendra, Nripendra and Upendra as also his widow, Sm. Narayan Kumari. Nripendra died childless and intestate some time in 1930 and Narayan Kumari died intestate in 1939. In 1953, Jitendra filed a suit against his three surviving brothers for partition of the joint estate and set out in a schedule to the plaint the properties which he considered to be joint family properties. In that suit Narendra, the third of the sons of Jogendra, filed his written statement in August, 1953 and he alleged in paragraph 15 of the written statement that Rabindra had built a honeat No. 74a Bhupendra Bosc Avenue in the be-nami of his wife, but with joint family funds. Some time thereafter, Upendra, the fourth brother, died and a suitable amendment of the plaint was made. We are informed that, for some reason or other, there was next a general order, permitting parties to file additional written statements. The appellant Narendra availed himself of that order and filed an additional written statement in February, 1955. In paragraph 8 of that statement, he elaborated what he had already alleged in paragraph 15 of his earlier statement and stated that the house at No. 74 Bhupendra Bose Avenue also appertained to the joint family estate in which Sm, Suprova Dutta, in whose name the house stood, had no beneficial right or interest. Having filed that additional written statement, the appellant applied for the addition of Sm. Suprova Dutta as a party to the suit and by an order made on 18-7-1956, she was added.

( 4 ) THE written statement of Sm. Suprova Dutta was filed on 21-8-1956. In paragraph 3 of that statement, she claimed the house at 74a Bhupendra Bose Avenue as her Stridhan property, the land according to her, having been acquired and the house built wholly with money belonging to herself. After asserting her title, she added in paragraph 5 that the appellant's claim to the house was barred by the law of limitation and that he had at all material times knowledge of the property having been purchased and owned by her. It appears that after she had filed that written statement, she was advised that the averments made therein ought to be supplemented and, accordingly, she made an application for leave to amend her written statement so as to introduce a case of adverse possession. The amendment she proposed to make was to add a new paragraph, numbered 5 (a), containing the statement that since the acquisition of premises No. 74a Bhupendra Bose Avenue, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the property openly, peaceably and as of right with the fullest claim to ownership and title and without any interference by the appellant or by anybody else. A further amendment sought by her was to add to the allegation contained in her original written statement that the appellant's case was barred by the law of limitation, an allegation that it was also barred by adverse possession. Both these amendments were allowed by Mallick J. , but the appellant contends that he wrongly allowed them to be made.

( 5 ) ON behalf of respondent No. 3, Sm. Suprova Dutta, Mr. Roy contended before us that, by t