SAO No.11 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAO No.11 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.04.2010 Leelu ..Appellant Versus Laxmi Narain and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Appellate Court remanding the case back for a fesh decision. The respondent had filed a suit for partition. The learned Appellate Court found that the respondent was a co-sharer and had the right to partition the property. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was hit by the Doctrine of Partial Partition. In the appeal, the respondent rectified this mistake and moved an application for amendment of the plaint and for addition of the necessary co-sharers as parties. The learned Appellate Court allowed the amendment and as mentioned-above, remanded the case back for a fresh decision. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that even if the appeal of the respondent had been dismissed, it could not have barred him from filing the fresh suit after including all the lands and all the co-sharers. In these circumstances, the approach of the leanred Appellate Court cannot be held to be illegal. Learned counsel has further argued that during this interregnum of one and a half decades the SAO No.11 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: appellant has made numerous improvements and that since the suit has been remanded back the appellant would not be able to incorporate this plea. In my opinion, once the suit had been remanded back after allowing the amendment of the plaint, the appellant would also be granted a right to file amended written statement wherein he can take up all the pleas regarding any improvement/value of the land as it exists today. It further goes without saying that the appellant would also be able to take any other plea which is available to him. With this clarification this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the present appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 21, 2010 sukhpreet