All that the plaintiff wanted was to clarify the derivation of title in respect of the property sought to be partitioned. The plaintiff also wanted to incorporate a plea that the documents allegedly executed by her father and relied on by the defendants are vitiated by fraud and undue influence. The plaintiff has a case that the omission to incorporate the above plea in the original plaint was noticed only much later notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence.
2. I am inclined to allow the application for amendment however subject to terms in view of the delay on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also not keen in curing the defect in the civil revision petition which has been pending in this Court for over a decade. The impugned order is set aside and I.A. No. 954/2002 in O.S. No. 271/1996 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam is allowed.
C.R.P. No. 413 of 2003 2
3. The impugned order will stand set aside on the plaintiff/petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the counsel for respondents 5 to 10 in this Civil Revision Petition. The costs shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today failing which the impugned order will remain intact.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS