Bidyadhar Pradhan Vs Premjit Mohanty

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner {plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2015-I before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhamnagar} praying for quashing (setting aside) the order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure-1) passed in C.S. No.114 of 2015-I by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhamnagar rejecting his petition under O.6 R.17 of the CPC, 1908 for amendment of his plaint i.e. in order to add the prayer for declaration of title with the prayer for injunction sought for earlier.

¶11

Page 1 of 4.

¶12

I have already heard from learned senior advocate for the petitioner (plaintiff) and learned counsel for O.P. (defendant).

¶13

During the course of hearing, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that, when in the suit vide C.S. No.114 of 2015-I filed by the petitioner for injunction simpliciter, the O.P. (defendant) disputed the title of the petitioner over the case land, then in view of the propositions of law settled by the Apex Court in a case between Anathula Sudhakar Vrs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , the plaint is required to be amended for addition of the prayer for declaration of title with the earlier prayer of the plaintiff for injunction.

¶14

To which, learned counsel for O.P. vehemently objected contending that, previously title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land has already been decided against him in earlier suit for partition. For which, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint in his plaint for addition of the prayer for declaration of his title.

¶15

The objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.P. can very well be adjudicated during the trial of the suit by framing a specific issue in respect of the same after elicitation of evidence from both the sides.

¶16

Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case between

¶17

Page 2 of 4.

¶18

Anathula Sudhakar Vrs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 (Supra) , I find no justification to disallow the CMP filed by the petitioner. Because, it was the duty of the Trial Court to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint for addition of the prayer for declaration of title with his earlier prayer for injunction simpliciter, as the defendant disputed his title over the case land in his written statement.

¶19

Hence, the CMP filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶20

The impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure-1) passed in C.S. No.114 of 2015-I by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhamnagar is quashed (set aside).

¶21

The petition dated 03.11.2017 for amendment of the plaint of the petitioner in the suit, vide C.S. No.114 of 2015-I under O.6 R.17 of the CPC, 1908 is allowed.

¶22

The plaint of the plaintiff be amended as per the proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner (plaintiff) in his plaint and the Trial Court shall allow the same permitting the O.P. (defendant) to file additional written statement against the above allowed amendment of the plaintiff taking his required pleas against the same.

¶23