Petitioner challenged the Sub Judge's order allowing amendment in an eviction suit via Article 227 writ petition. The High Court held that interference is only for jurisdictional errors or gross injustice, finding no infirmity in the order downwards.
The application challenging the amendment order is dismissed with no finding of infirmity.
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.17312 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Rajesh Kumar S/O Sri Uma Charan Prasad Resident Of Dadiya Baba Ki Thakurbari Tekari Road, P.S- Kotwali, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Anita Kumari W/O Sri Manoj Kumar Resident Of Mohalla- Punjab Coloney New Godown, P.S- Kotwali, District- Gaya. 2. Manoj Kumar S/ Sri Bali Nandan Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- Punjab Coloney New Godown, P.S- Kotwali, District- Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Indra Mohan Kumar For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 02-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.8.2012 passed by Sub Judge-1st ,Gaya, in Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2011 whereby an application filed for amending the plaint has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amendment materially changes the nature of the case and it amounts to introduction of new facts. I have perused the impugned order. The order has been challenged in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In my view, this Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the order passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17312 of 2012 (4) dt.02-09-2013
2
by the subordinate court only in exceptional cases i.e. only when the court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. The correctness or otherwise of an order of the subordinate court is not required to be examined unless the court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution itself is satisfied that such an order is grossly unjust and illegal. In the present case, the court below has allowed the amendment petition in exercise of its jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The application is thus dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
singh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the amendment order passed by the Sub Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the amendment petition in an eviction suit can be allowed when it allegedly changes the nature of the case.
Rajesh Kumar
Anita Kumari
Manoj Kumar
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
