Allowed

Rambhajan Sahu v. Lalaram

Chhattisgarh HC22 Sept 2024WP227/848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the dismissal of amendment applications for adding mesne profit relief and impleading co-sharers in a civil suit. The Court held that without prejudice to the other side, such amendments should be allowed, directing the trial court to permit them upon deposit of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; amendment applications and impleading application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- cost deposit.

Rambhajan Sahu Vs Lalaram — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:37255

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(227) No.848 of 2024

¶6

Rambhajan Sahu S/o Latel Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Dhapai, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Lalaram S/o Latel Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dhapai, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶9

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Office Of The Collector, Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶10

For Petitioners : Shri KS Kurre, Advocate. For : Shri Amandeep Singh, PL. Respondent/State

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶12

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.24 11:29:03 +0530

¶13

23.09.2024

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 09.07.2024 whereby, two applications filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff i.e. applications dated 27.01.2023 and 09.05.2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading the

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

co-sharers as Defendants, were dismissed in Civil Suit No.125-A/2022 by the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit on 28.10.2022 for declaration and injunction and during pendency of the said suit, Respondent No.1/Defendant has caused loss to the Petitioner/Plaintiff by stealing the paddy crop sown by him, therefore, the relief of mesne profit has been added by filing two amendment applications, one to elaborate the facts with regard to the possession of the suit property of a different co-sharer and the other to array the party as co-sharer, which were dismissed by way of the order impugned. Hence this Petition.

¶19

Shri Kurre submits that an amendment application for mesne profit has been filed prior to filing of written statement and another amendment application has also been filed before framing of the issues. He further submits that as the case was at initial stage and evidence was also not yet commenced, therefore, no prejudice would have been caused to the other side, however, the trial Court has adopted a hypertechnical approach and dismissed the said applications, which is not sustainable and prays to allow the Petition.

¶20

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, perused the order impugned and also gone through the documents annexed with the Petition carefully.

¶21

It is well established that the Plaintiff, in a suit being dominus litis, has a right, having been vested by law, to choose the persons against

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

whom he wishes to litigate and implead them as co-sharers as they are also interested in the subject suit.

¶24

In the case at hand, only on the ground that no document has been filed in support of the said amendment applications, they were rejected. As the suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit, loss has been caused by taking away the crop of the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the relief of mesne profit has been proposed to be added by way of the amendment application and to make things more elaborative and clarificatory in nature with regard to the possession of the suit property between the other cosharers as also with regard to the manner in which the mutation took place between them.

¶25

Taking into consideration the fact that the evidence has not yet commenced and no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the said applications are allowed and further considering that the proposed amendment for adding the relief of mesne profit is for the cause of subsequent development and other amendment applications are only elaborative and clarifactory in nature, also considering the well settled principle that the Courts should be more generous in allowing the amendments and keeping in mind the principle laid down in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256 wherein, it was held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, this Court is of the view that the

¶26

4 / 4

¶27

concerned trial Court has wrongly dismissed both the amendment applications as well as application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading the other co-sharers as party Defendants.

¶28

In view of above, the impugned order is quashed and the aforesaid amendment applications and application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are hereby directed to be allowed subject to payment of aggregate cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to Respondent No.1/Defendant through his Counsel. The aforesaid cost shall be deposited within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which, this order shall lose its efficacy. Upon deposit of the aforesaid cost, the concerned Court shall permit the other co-sharers as party Defendants and allow both the amendment applications and shall also grant an opportunity to the other side to file consequential amendment, if required and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶31

Priya

Rambhajan Sahu v. Lalaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhajan Sahu v. Lalaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhasketan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs Smt. Vrindavati Yadav

Smt. Rangulia Vs Devendra Prasad Gupta

Pintu Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Prakash Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited