IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 5753 of 2007 AVTAR SINGH & ORS. V/S A.D.J. ,(F.T.) NO.2 UDAIPUR & ORS. Mr. JK BHAIYA for Mr. SAJJAN SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 20.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. The learned trial court has dismissed the application for amendment, on the ground, that the amendment in substance does not seek to make any amendment in the plea, but is only in the nature of relief covered by O. 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. A look at the application for amendment shows, that the plaintiff seeks to add a plea as para-5-A, to the effect, that in the business mentioned in para-5A the stock register, and income and expenditure account of the ancestral business is with the defendant, and the defendant is using the property which is ancestral, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to have the share of income thereon, and for that account is required to be got produced. Then, the other plea sought to be raised is by way of para क-क, to the effect, that the account of income and expenditure of the shop, since death of Harnam Singh, be got produced in the suit, and the income be got directed to be deposited in the Court, and be given to the plaintiff, according to his share. A look at para-5 of the plaint shows, that it has been contended therein, that Harnam was carrying on cloth business in the shop described therein, which was of Hindu Undivided Family business, which consisted of stock, amounting to Rs. 3 lacks, and since death of Harnam Singh, Amarjeet Singh continued to carry on business as head of the family. The business was being carried on for the last 40 years, and that, all account of income and expenditure of the shop, since death of Harnam Singh, is with the defendant, wherein the plaintiff is entitled to get his share. In my view, on the face of aforesaid pleading contained in para-5, the learned trial court cannot be said to be in error, in declining the prayer for amendment. In my view the proposed amendment cannot be said to be necessary for the purpose of determining real question involved between the parties. 2 Thus, I do not find any force in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/ 3