ORDER : Petitioner being the 2nd defendant in first respondent’s comprehensive suit in O.S.No.7325/2009 is knocking at the doors of the writ court seeking to lay a challenge to the order dated 12.11.2013 made by learned XXXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby his application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 seeking leave to amend his Written Statement has been rejected. After service of notice the contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the suit was filed on 1.11.2009; petitioner filed his Written Statement on 21.01.2010; he filed I.A.No.3 seeking leave of the Court for amending the Written Statement on 12.03.2012; the issues have not been framed and thus obviously the trial is yet to begin; that being the position, the Court below could not have denied leave to amend his Written Statement to include in the suit left over properties enumerated in the application; he further argues that it is a settled legal position that a suit for partition, necessarily has to comprise all the properties of the joint family and with such a contention having been taken up in his Written Statement, no effort having been made by the plaintiff’s side to include all properties otherwise left over; the impugned order is infected with error of law warranting indulgence of this court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, per contra, contends that the impugned order is not vulnerable in law or on facts, the same being a product of exercise of discretion; the application of the petitioner is not bonafide inasmuch as two more properties he has deliberately not enlisted and therefore such application need not be entertained at all; some of the properties enlisted in the subject application do not avail for partition since they were partitioned way back in the year 1992 itself and the one now sought to be included is the self acquisition of the respondent-plaintiff. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having adverted to the petition papers, this court is of the view that leave ought to have been granted for amending the Written Statement, as sought for, for the following reasons: (i) the suit filed on 16.11.2009 is for a comprehensive decree and all the parties are related to each other; petitioner resisted the same by filing his Written Statement on 21.01.2010 wherein he had taken up the contention that the properties now sought to be included were left out in the suit; it is a settled position of law that a suit wherein a decree for partition is sought for, needs to comprise all the properties of the joint family subject to just exceptions into which the case of the respondent does not fall; petitioner filed application on 12.03.2012 when no issues were framed and obviously no witness having been called to the box, the trial was yet to begin; therefore there is no lapse or laches on the part of the petitioner that would otherwise affect the interest of the respondent-plaintiff or the other parties. (ii) the contention that the application is not bona fide since it does not comprise some more properties which otherwise would avail for partition, may not be a ground for denial of leave for amending the pleadings; similarly, the other contention that petitioner seeks to include a property which is self acquisition of the respondent-plaintiff, also is not a ground, either; it is open to the respondent to file rejoinder/replication to work out the grievance in this regard. . Thus no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties to the suit if leave is granted as sought for, for amending the Written Statement. Even otherwise also justice of the case requires that leave be granted, of course on costs & condition. . Thus no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties to the suit if leave is granted as sought for, for amending the Written Statement. Even otherwise also justice of the case requires that leave be granted, of course on costs & condition. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 is favoured and leave is accorded for amending the Written Statement as sought for; petitioner to file the amended Written Statement within four weeks, whereupon the respondent-plaintiff or the counter claimants may choose to file the rejoinder/replication within next four weeks; petitioner is liable to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent-plaintiff within one month or on the next date of hearing of the suit, whichever is later, failing which the order now set at naught, stands resurrected; petitioner shall not seek any adjournment save by payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in future.