IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 203 of 2006 (M/S) Satish Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus Civil Judge, Haridwar & others … Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants, who are co-sharers in the property in question. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. to amend the plaint into a suit for partition. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it would be open to the plaintiff to file a separate suit for partition. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, filed the writ petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the trial court committed an error by directing the plaintiff to file a separate suit. When parties to the suit are common and the property needs to be divided, which is indicated in the suit itself, the plaint can be amended into a partition suit. The trial court committed an error in directing the plaintiff to file a separate suit. The trial court should have kept in mind that as far as possible 2 multiplicity of suit should be avoided and inter se dispute should be settled between the parties in one suit itself. 4. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application is allowed on the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited before the trial court within three weeks from today. 5. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27.12.2011 Aswal