JUDGMENT

The original petition arises from a partition suit which was filed in 2016. The plaint schedule property is shown as a shed. The written statement filed by the defendants says that the property is not partible and that there is an existing building in the plaint schedule property. The plaint proceeds as if there is an attempt to make construction and there is a prayer for a prohibitory injunction also. Much later, an application was filed in 2024 seeking to amend the plaint by showing the plaint schedule property as including a double storey building and the prayer portion of the suit is also sought to be amended accordingly. The court below disallowed the amendment finding that the petitioner knew about the existence of the building at least at the time of filing of the written statement and the amendment is sought after the final hearing itself was over. I do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the court below.

The original petition hence fails and is dismissed. This is however without any prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all questions that are legally permitted to be raised in the final decree proceedings, if the suit is decreed.

Sd/-