JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, in Civil Suit No.157 dated 25.03.2015, whereby the application for amendment has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for separate possession to the extent of 0 kanal 5 marlas 7 sarsahi being 13/90 shares by way of partition of the house/property measuring 2 kanals 0 marla shown in red and green colour which was stated to be comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.172/183, Khasra No.368 (1-0), 369 (1-0) as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, situated in the area of village Dangon (H.B. no. 352), Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana. It is submitted that in the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was specifically stated that the present case was a case of partial partition which was not maintainable as there were other joint properties which were comprised in Khasra No.370 as well as in Rectangle No.42 Killa No.14/2. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and another application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the parties and amendment of the plaint with respect to Khasra No.370 but in the said application for amendment has not included Rectangle No.42 Killa No.14/2 and thus even after the amendment has been allowed, the objection of the petitioner to the effect that the same would still remain a case of partial partition and the same would still be a ground to reject the suit. It is submitted that thus the applications deserve to be dismissed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1:

3. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that it is the case of the plaintiff that the house in question is constructed on Khasra No.368 and 369 and also on Khasra No.370 and the suit has been filed for partition of the said house. It is submitted that the house is not constructed on Rectangle No.42 Killa No.14/2 and thus the plaintiff has not included the said rectangle number/killa number in the suit. It is further submitted that the amendment which has been allowed is necessary for proper adjudication of the case and it is a matter of settled law that at the time of deciding the application for amendment, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the said amendment.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition deserves to be rejected.

5. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for separate possession with respect to the land which was detailed in the headnote of the plaint. The relevant portion of the headnote is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Suit for separate possession to the extent of 0K-5M-7S being 13/90 shares by way of partition of the house/property measuring 2K-0M shown as Red & GREEN in the site plan attached with the plaint and bounded as under:-

North: Bahadur Singh South: Harnek Singh East: Drain West: Road comprising Khewat/Khatauni no. 172/183, Khasra no. 368 (1-0), 369 (1-0) as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, situated in the area of village Dangon (H.B. No. 352), Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.

And as a consequential relief suit for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion shown as GREEN in the site plan and also restraining the defendants from making the material changes in the disputed house/property by way of demolishing the old construction and raising the new construction illegally and forcibly, on the basis of oral and documentary