In a writ under Article 226/227, the petitioner challenged a lower court order partly rejecting an amendment petition. The court held there was no merit in claiming irregularity as the order required argument before corrections.
Application dismissed with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited in the account of Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna.
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.5530 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Shanti Devi W/O Nageshwar Singh R/O Village- Kanchanpur, P.S.Bidupur, P.O.- Rajashan, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Baleshwari Devi W/O Harihar Singh R/O Village- Kanchanpur, P.S. Bidupur, P.O. Rajashan, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, advocate For the Respondent : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 20-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 09-11-2012 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 376/2002 whereby and whereunder he partly rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner.
It appears that seeking certain amendments, the plaintiff had filed a petition on 11-05-2009. The amendment was, however, disallowed by learned court below by order dated 19-05-2009. Against the said order dated 19-05-2009 Civil Revision application vide C.R. No. 1110/2009 was filed before this court which was subsequently converted into CWJC No. 9010 of 2011. The said CWJC NO. 9010 of 2011 was disposed of by this court
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
2/3
vide order dated 19-05-2011 in following terms:-
“Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with the observation that the typing error may be indicated before the court during the course of argument and if it is only typing error, the same may be taken into account.”
As would be apparent from the said order dated 19-05-2011, it was indicated that only in course of argument if any typing error was brought to the notice of the court, the same may be taken into account.
It seems that on the basis of such observation, as contained in the order dated 19-05-2011, at the instance of the petitioner certain typographical errors, as pointed out, were allowed to be corrected, by court below.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned court below should have considered all the amendments which were sought by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 19-05-2011 and has committed serious irregularity in not considering the same.
From a bare reading of the order dated 19-05-2011, it will appear that the typing errors were required to be considered at the time of argument. The order was wrongly pressed into service before the court below for the purpose of making correction at any
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
3/3
stage, prior to the argument.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- which should be deposited in the account of Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna within a period of four weeks from today.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
BKS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was a serious irregularity in the lower court not considering all amendments sought in compliance with the previous high court order.
Whether the high court order allowing correction of typographical errors only during argument could be invoked for corrections prior to argument.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shanti Devi W/O Nageshwar Singh
Baleshwari Devi W/O Harihar Singh
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
