Amendments to pleadings are essential for effective adjudication and should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this Petition, initially registered as OWP No. 1293/2018 and later treated as Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, re-diarized as CM (M) No. 111/2022 vide Order dated 6th of May, 2022, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 4th of June, 2018 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Chadoora, whereby in a Suit titled ‘Haja Alias Hajira Bano v. Gh. Mohammad Ahangar & Ors.’, an application moved in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order I Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for grant of leave to amend the Suit was rejected, holding that the Plaintiff through the medium of that application wanted to make such changes which shall change the nature of the Suit and also that the reason seeking amendment was within the knowledge of the Plaintiff at the time of the filing of the Suit, as such, the application is barred in terms of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. The Petitioner had filed a Civil Suit for declaration, partition, separate possession and injunction before the Court below, asserting therein that the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Abdul Ahad Ahangar died in the year 2010, leaving behind the parties to the Suit as his legal heirs, as such, the estate left behind by him vested and devolved upon the parties to the Suit in terms of the Shariat Act; that the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and grandfather of Defendant Nos. 5 to 10 was the owner, possessor and title holder of land measuring 07 Kanals and 05 Marlas comprising of Survey Nos. 389, 390 and 421 of village Gund, Checkpora, Tehsil Baghat-i-Kanipora, District Budgam and land measuring 03 Kanals and 08 Marlas comprising of Survey Nos. 1092, 1180 and 1003, along with residential house thereon situate at village Nowgam, Tehsil Chanapora, District Srinagar; that the parties to the Suit were claimed to be the only legal heirs left by the deceased estate holder, Abdul Ahad Ahanger and that after his death, the parties to the Suit became co- sharers, co-owners and co-possessors of the Suit property and are entitled to get their respective shares in terms of law of succession, as envisaged under the Shariat Act, the parties being Muslim by faith and religion and being governed by the Shariat Act in the matter of inheritance, etc.; that the estate mentioned above, situated at Nowgam, was still in the name of the deceased Ahad Ahangar, however, it was alleged that the Defendant No.1, by greasing the palms of the revenue officials, had got the Mutation attested in his name with respect to property situated at Village Gund, Checkpora illegally, in violation of the provisions of Shariat Act and of other rules and norms, standing orders devised for attestation of mutation at the back of the Plaintiff and proforma Defendants, to the exclusion of the rest of the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Ahad Ahangar, i.e., the Plaintiff and proforma Defendants and that mutation had already been assailed before the competent forum, whose operation was ordered to be kept in abeyance; that the property is joint un-partitioned and undivided amongst the Plaintiff and the Defendants and, despite several requests by the Plaintiff and the Defendants to partition the Suit property, the contesting Defendant, who is on spot holding possession of over 90% of the Suit property, delayed the same on one pretext or the other and, lastly, refused to partition the Suit property, making it public that the Plaintiff had no right, interest or claim over the Suit property and that he would not give even an inch of that to the Plaintiff, whereas the Plaintiff, being the joint owner, co-sharer and possessor of the Suit property, has every right to seek partition of the Suit property by metes and bounds and to get separate possession of her due share after partition and that none of the Defendants can sell or alienate the Suit