old case of the Year 2003, finding argument on behalf of the plaintiffs is going on. All the defendants have finished their final argument. Then, this amendment petition has filed particularly when the defendants have raised question and pleaded defence regarding averment mentioned in para-3 of the plaint. On perusal of averment in para-3 of the plaint it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs have stated that disputed properties mentioned in Schedule-Ka, is an ancestral as well as joint family properties and there is some exchange at the time of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Thus there is no need of amendment to explain the same. It can’t say that inspite of due diligence it couldn’t detected earlier and amended accordingly. Further it can’t be said that there is some typical mistake. At this stage this petition has filed to delay the proceeding of the case. Thus, the amendment sought is not in formal in nature and it may vanish admitted fact and defence. Both the parties directed to co-operate the Court for timely disposal of the case. So the petition rejected.”
