1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10521/2007. Indrajeet Singh Hora. VS Rajendra Singh Hora & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10521/2007. Indrajeet Singh Hora. VERSUS Rajendra Singh Hora and Others. 06.07.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.S.S.Hora, for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Kumar Jain ] Mr.S.N.Kumawat ] for the respondents. Mr.Mohd. Anees ] ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order (Annexure-12) by which the application submitted by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. It is no doubt true the amendment has been sought at a very late stage. Nonetheless, by the amendment the plaintiff has only sought to incorporate in the plaint averments with regard to the some additional properties for which also the plaintiff has sought to be included in the suit for partition as a partible estate left behind by the deceased father. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the properties which are now sought to be incorporated were gifted to him at a very early stage during the lifetime of the father himself and that with respect to this property, if at all the plaintiff- 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10521/2007. Indrajeet Singh Hora. VS Rajendra Singh Hora & Ors. respondents has any claim, he should file a separate suit, to my mind do not appear to be correct. In the facts and circumstances, the objections that the property was gifted to the defendant- petitioner by the deceased father is open to be raised by the defendant in the written statement which may be filed to the amended plaint and it would be open for the defendant to contest the question as to whether or not the newly added property forms part of the partible estate left behind by the deceased father. So far as the question with regard to filing of separate suits is concerned, that again to my mind does not appear to be correct as separate suits in respect of different properties left behind by the deceased for partition, to my mind cannot be filed as all the properties must be joined and included in the very same suit. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to the notice of the court that the learned trial court had allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.300/- which has been accepted by the defendant- petitioner. In case the aforesaid position is correct, then too the impugned order does not call for any interference. 3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10521/2007. Indrajeet Singh Hora. VS Rajendra Singh Hora & Ors. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. The learned trial court would now grant fresh time to the defendant-petitioner for filing the written statement to the amended plaint which has already been filed. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order stands vacated. The stay application also stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.