JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Plaintiffs' case may be stated in short. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of Plaintiff No. 1. One Damodar Patel had two sons, Rajendra (Defendant No. 1) and Ratnakar (deceased). Ratnakar's natural born son, who was married to Defendant No. 5 Jamini, died. Ratnakar brought up Plaintiff No. 1 Ghanashyam as his adopted son and got him remarried to Defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Jamini through the first husband. Plaintiffs' initial stand was that Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 5 were entitled to the disputed lands on the strength of a registered sale deed of gift dated 5-10-1959 executed by Rajendra and Ratnakar jointly in their favour. Rajendra cancelled the deed of gift and after cancellation transferred the disputed lands in favour of Defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 6-10-1965. An important plea taken in the written statement was that the entire disputed property belonged to Defendant No. 1. The case was posted for hearing on 28-8-1969 and p.w. 1 was examined on that day. On the next day (29-8-1969) an amendment application was filed wherein the following amendment were sought: (i) In the alternative a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs. (ii) In paragraph 3 of the plaint, in line 4 after the word "joint", the words "Schedule A lands are the lands which fell to the share of Rajendra" be added. In the written statement itself, there was an averment that Schedule A lands belong to Rajendra. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the amendments without giving any opportunity to the contesting Defendants to file a rejoinder. When an application for time was filed to enable them to go to the High Court in revision, the learned Judge clarified the position by saying that it was open to the Defendants to recall p.w. 1 and cross-examine him if they so chose. 2. The short question for consideration is whether the amendments should have been allowed and whether the contesting Defendants should have been given an opportunity of filing a fresh written statement. It would appear from the plaint that the basis of the Plaintiffs' title was the validity of the registered deed of gift. 2. The short question for consideration is whether the amendments should have been allowed and whether the contesting Defendants should have been given an opportunity of filing a fresh written statement. It would appear from the plaint that the basis of the Plaintiffs' title was the validity of the registered deed of gift. After the written statement was filed by Defendant No. 5 supporting the case of Defendants 1 and 2 the position of the Plaintiffs became weak. The stand taken by Defendant No. 5 would not, however, affect the Plaintiffs' case in proving the execution of the registered deed of gift, its validity and acceptance. The change in the prayer portion sought for by the amendment, did not therefore affect the Plaintiffs' stand. It would be an additional prayer flowing from the attitude taken by Defendant No. 5 in not adopting the Plaintiffs' case that the deed of gift was valid. The learned Subordinate Judge was right in allowing such an amendment. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge was also right in allowing the second amendment that Schedule A lands belonged exclusively to Rajendra as that was the very case made out in the written statement itself So, if the Plaintiffs accepted the case of the Defendants by the amendment, the Defendant cannot have any grievance. This amendment was also rightly allowed. 4. The only other question is whether the learned Judge should have allowed time to the contesting Defendants to file a further written statement. If one looks into the essence of the matter, the learned Judge was perhaps right in saying that there was no necessity for filing an additional written statement. But no Judge should ordinarily take such responsibility on himself on his own view. Once a party wants to amend the plaint the Defendant gets a right to file a written statement in answer to the amended plaint. It is not desirable for a Judge to apply his mind to the facts of the case and then say that a written statement need not be filed. Such responsibility may be left to the parties and their Advocates. If a particular Advocate is very learned he may find out a point which may not strike a Judge. I am, therefore, of opinion that there was no justification for the learned subordinate Judge to say that the Defendants had nothing more to say in the additional written statement. Such responsibility may be left to the parties and their Advocates. If a particular Advocate is very learned he may find out a point which may not strike a Judge. I am, therefore, of opinion that there was no justification for the learned subordinate Judge to say that the Defendants had nothing more to say in the additional written statement. 5. I would accordingly modify the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and direct that the Defendants be given an opportunity of filing an additional written statement. The learned Judge has himself directed that p.w. 1 should be cross-examined. But this part of the order requires modification inasmuch as he has said that the Defendants should recall p.w. 1 for cross-examination. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to produce p.w. 1 for cross-examination by the Defendants. 6. In the result the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is modified as indicated above, and the civil revision is allowed in part, but in the circumstances parties will bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed