“8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that hearing of the suit has not yet commenced. Of course, the suit is of the year 2003 and is pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack. Only because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court will be taken away by the amendment of the plaint, the same cannot be the sole ground to refuse the prayer. Since the Plaintiffs/Petitioners have prayed for declaration that the deed of partition as aforesaid to be null and void, learned trial Court should have considered the amendment to incorporate the pleadings as well as prayer with regard to validity of the RSD dated 30th April, 1999, as it is an consequence of such partition, which is under challenge. If the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are not permitted to incorporate such amendment at this stage, it may lead to multiplicity of litigations. In order to shorten the time for complete adjudication of the lis between the parties with regard to validity of partition as well as consequential execution of sale deed, this Court feels that learned trial Court should have allowed the amendment; which is of course subject to the question of limitation. If objection to the prayer for amendment is raised on the ground of limitation, the amendment sought for should not be thrown out at the threshold, more particularly when objection on limitation depends upon interpretation of materials on record. In such cases, question of limitation can also be decided by framing an issue to that effect.”
