1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2010/2007 Rajendra Baheti. vs. ADJ (FT) No.2, Bhilwara & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2010/2007 Rajendra Baheti. vs. Addl. District Judge (FT) No.2, Bhilwara and ors. Date : 16.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.S Srimali, for the petitioner. Mr.H Maheshwari, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner/defendant no.1 is aggrieved against the order dated 19.8.2006 by which the trial court allowed the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to the plaintiffs, after filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiffs found that the plaintiffs committed mistake in describing the plaintiffs and defendants Hindu undivided family as Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop whereas subsequently, he came to know that the name of Joint Hindu Family was Balchand 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2010/2007 Rajendra Baheti. vs. ADJ (FT) No.2, Bhilwara & Ors. Nathuram, therefore, they may be permitted to amend the plaint so as to describe the property for which the suit for partition has been filed to be the property of Joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs having name Balchand Nathuram. That application was allowed by the trial court and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend paras no.1,3 and 7. The plaintiffs also sought deletion of certain properties from the schedule of the properties annexed with the plaint and some other amendments were also sought. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiffs in fact substituted the properties of Balchand Nathuram in place of originally pleaded properties of Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop by amendment which could not have been allowed by the trial court as that would change the entire nature of the suit and the subject matter of the suit also. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2010/2007 Rajendra Baheti. vs. ADJ (FT) No.2, Bhilwara & Ors. It is clear from the facts pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs are claiming that their original ancestor was Hari Vallabh and his descendant Bagtawarmal. Hari Vallabh died in 1943 and Bagtawarmal died in 1966 leaving behind Ramswaroop who also died in the year 1990 and two daughters Shanta and Sita and Ramswaroop had number of descendants. The plaintiffs pleaded that after death of Hari Vallabh, the properties devolved upon late Bagtawarmal and late Ramswaroop and thereafter, it devolved upon the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. From the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is clear that the plaintiffs only contention is that the property which devolved in the fashion in which it has been pleaded in plaint, has name Balchand Nathuram in place of Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop. The name in the facts and circumstances was not much relevant because the plaintiffs are not claiming that there are properties of “Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop” separately and the properties of “Balchand Nathuram” separately and initially they filed the suit for partition of the properties of “Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop” coming into the hands of the 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2010/2007 Rajendra Baheti. vs. ADJ (FT) No.2, Bhilwara & Ors. plaintiffs by any other ancestor and now they are claiming properties of “Balchand Nathuram” coming from the hands of the person who is not original ancestor of the parties. Therefore, it is nothing but a clarification in the describing the name of the joint Hindu family and not the substitution of the properties of one joint Hindu family by another properties of another joint Hindu family by amending the plaint. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya