This writ petition under Article 227 challenged a lower court order rejecting an amendment to plead. The High Court held that since the additional respondent was already arraigned, the proposed amendment was formal and allowed it.
The impugned order dated 26.8.2010 was set aside and the proposed amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10177 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Meena Devi W/O Lal Deo Sah R/O Vill. - Damodarpur, Shahjahan @ Dumri, P.S. - Sadar, Distt. - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sarmila Devi W/O Shyam Babu Sah R/O Vill. - Madaripur, P.O. - Rampur, Hari, P.S. - Meenapur, Distt. - Muzaffarpur. 2. Arun Kumar Gupta S/O Late Dahaur Sah R/O Vill. - Gobarsahi, P.O. - Khabra, P.S. - Sadar, Distt. - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rai Ramesh Prasad, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
3 16-10-2012 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rai Ramesh Prasad learned counsel for the respondents.
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge 9th , Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 29 of 2007 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the amendment prayed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is not in contest that the prayer for amending the suit by adding the respondent No.2 as defendant in the Court below, has been allowed by the Court below.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10177 of 2011 (3) dt.16-10-2012
2 / 2
By the present amendment the plaintiff-petitioner only seeks to modify the word “defendant” to read as “defendants” and to replace the word “is” by the word “are”, for the reason that the defendants are now more than one.
I have perused the amendments placed at Annexure-1 of the application and considering that the respondent No.2 has already been arraigned as a defendant in the Court below, the modification sought by the proposed amendment becomes formal in nature.
In that view of the matter, this application is allowed. The order impugned dated 26.8.2010 is set aside. The proposed amendment placed at Annexure-1 of the present application dated 28.6.2010 is allowed subject to payment of cost quantified at Rs. 1000/- payable to the defendant in the Court below. Learned Court below shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow an application under Article 226 to modify a formal amendment regarding the pluralization of 'defendant' due to the joinder of an additional respondent.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the amendment prayer should be set aside when the amendment sought is formal in nature.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Meena Devi
Sarmila Devi
Arun Kumar Gupta
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
