Honble MAJMUDAR, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are original defendant nos. 1 and 2 and are the only contesting parties in this appeal. The appeal was taken up for final disposal forthwith by their consent.

(3). Appellant-plaintiff had filed a civil suit for partition of 10 items of immovable properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint and also for partition of other properties listed in Schedule-B of the plaint. The suit was filed in 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Bundi for partition of the suit properties mentioned in diverse schedules annexed to the plaint. The contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, being real brothers of the plaintiff filed a joint written statement on 1st October 1993 in the Trial Court. In the written statement a definite stand was taken by the contesting defendants that out of the listed properties in Schedule-A only three properties at items 4, 9 and 10 were exclusively belonging to the contesting defendants and were not joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2. Meaning thereby that the other seven properties listed in Schedule-A were admitted to be joint family properties. Not only that but in para 11 of the written statement it was submitted that the plaintiff is only entitled for partition regarding the properties of Schedule-A except items 4,9 and 10 and all the properties mentioned in Schedule-B. They also stated in the said para 11 of the written statement that so far as admitted properties were concerned, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share and remaining 2/3rd share belonged to defendant nos. 1 and 2. It appears that thereafter the suit remained pending for trial for number of years. On the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by the contesting parties in the written statement, issues were framed by the Trial Court. Issue No.2, amongst others, read as under:

``Whether the property mentioned in item No. 4,9 & 10 of Schedule `Aa attached with the Plaint is the property of Hindu Undivided Family ?

(4). Obviously this issue was framed in the light of the admission of the con- testing defendants in the written statement that rest of the items listed in Schedule-A were joint family properties wherein the plaintiff had a share along with the defendants.

(5). In the light of the aforesaid admitted position between the parties qua these properties the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of a receiver in connection with 7 admitted properties in Schedule-A. It was at that stage and that too after a passage of about 18 months from the moving of such application for appointment of receiver by the appellant that defendant no.1 came forward with an amendment application to amend his written statement. In the amendment application it was submitted that because of incomplete information supplied by him to his counsel the written statement came to contain the so-called admissions regarding 5 out of 7 items of the properties in Schedule-A and that he had suffered a heart attack in 1989 and therefore when the written statement was moved in 1993 this error crept in. He also wanted to insert a further averment in the written statement regarding Schedule-B properties that they had ceased to remain in possession of defendant no.1 and were in posession trespassers. Learned Trial Judge took the view that the application for amendment was not a bona fide one and it was moved only with a view to protract the proceedings as the suit was at the stage of trial by then. Learned Trial Judge was not inclined to accept the reasons put forward for moving such an amendment application at such a late stage and that too for getting out of the admissions made by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in connection with the relevant suit properties. The result was that the amendment application was dismissed. The first defendant carried the matter in revision under Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document