Dismissed

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. v. Sunita Devi and Ors.

Patna HC16 Sept 2013CWJC/14221/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Article 227 seeking to quash an order refusing to permit amendment of a partition suit plaint filed after eleven years, finding no illegality in the lower court’s decision as it would complicate the matter.

What did the court decide?

The application under Article 227 for quashing the order dismissing the plea for amendment of plaint is dismissed.

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. Vs Sunita Devi and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14221 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Mahadeo Mahto Son Of Late Bhola Mahto Resident Of Village- Tadhwa Nandpur, Tola- Dihi, P.O. + P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 2. Mantura Devi Wife Of Mahadeo Mahto Resident Of Village- Tadhwa Nandpur, Tola- Dihi, P.O. + P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 3. Prabhu Prasad Son Of Mahadeo Mahto Resident Of Village- Tadhwa Nandpur, Tola- Dihi, P.O. + P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 4. Shambhu Prasad Son Of Mahadeo Mahto Resident Of Village- Tadhwa Nandpur, Tola- Dihi, P.O. + P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 5. Devendra Prasad @ Nandu Prasad Son Of Mahadeo Mahto Resident Of Village- Tadhwa Nandpur, Tola- Dihi, P.O. + P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sunita Devi Wife Of Raju Mahto Resident Of Village- Badhambarpur, Police Station- Pujaha, District- West Champaran 2. Rahdya Shyam Prasad Son Of Nandlal Prasad Resident Of VillageBalua, P.O. Balua, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 3. Vikas Prasad Son Of Nandlal Prasad Resident Of Village- Balua, P.O. Balua, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 4. Umesh Prasad Son Of Nandlal Prasad Resident Of Village- Balua, P.O. Balua, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 5. Nand Lal Prasad Son Of Late Dilram Bhagat Resident Of Village- Balua, P.O. Balua, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran 6. Dinanath Prasad Son Of Late Shivpujan Prasad Resident Of VillageTadhwanandpur, Police Station- Bairiya, District- West Champaran 7. Nand Lal Prasad Son Of Late Shivpujan Prasad Resident Of VillageTadhwanandpur, Police Station- Bairiya, District- West Champaran 8. Bhupendra Prasad Son Of Baidhnath Prasad Resident Of VillageTadhwanandpur, P.O. Tadhwa P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran 9. Laxmi Mahto Son Of Late Japat Mahto Resident Of VillageTadhwanandpur, P.O. Tadhwa P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran 10. Chhotelal Patel Son Of Nakched Patel (Raut) Resident Of VillageTadhwanandpur, P.O. Tadhwa P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Kishun Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 16-09-2013 This application under Article 227 of the

¶3

¶4

Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 20.5.2013 passed in Partition Suit No. 194 of 2002 by Sub Judge-IIIrd, Bettiah, West Champaran, whereby application filed by the petitioners, who are plaintiffs before the below, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed.

¶5

From the impugned order, it appears that the Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2002 and the evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses and some of the defendants’ witnesses have been completed. From the impugned order it appears that for the first time, after nearly eleven years of institution of the suit, plaintiff sought to take a plea, by way of amendment, that Mahashia was alias name of his mother. At such belated stage of the suit, the Court refused to permit amendment as it would have unnecessarily complicated the matter.

¶6

I do not find any such illegality in the order so as

¶7

to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶9

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶10

Arun Kumar/-

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. v. Sunita Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. v. Sunita Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachidanand Panday Vs Sheo Shankar Pandey and Anr.

Rakhi Sinha @ Rakhi and Anr. Vs Kamal Kishore Sinha @ Kamal Ki

Nishit Kumar Singh @ Nishant K Vs Ramanand Prasad Gupta and Ors.

Deochandra Sah @ Jaichandra Sah Vs Srimati Manju Lata Mishra

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga Vs Munia Devi and Ors.

Shakeena Devi Vs Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr.