1 WP 6149/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6149 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. J. Shekhar i/b J. Shekhar & Co. for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 11 February 2010 passed by the trial court allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. 3. In a suit for partition filed by the respondents, they sought to amend the plaint by adding certain properties and also make some consequential amendments. Counsel for 2 WP 6149/10 the petitioners submitted that the properties were originally omitted from the suit and no leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) was sought and, therefore, the application for amendment should not have been allowed. If a plaintiff accidentally omits to mention a particular property in a suit for partition, it cannot be said that he ought to have obtained the leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code before filing of the suit. In fact, if he was not aware that the property belongs to the joint family, there was no question of he seeking leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. It is only with a view to bring all the properties of the family in the suit for partition that the amendment is sought to be made by the respondents. In my view, the lower court committed no error in allowing the application for amendment. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)