Allowed

Ravi Shankar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC7 Jan 2013CWJC/9933/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging a lower court order rejecting an amendment to the plaint. The court held the amendment prayed for was formal and did not change the suit's nature, quashing the lower court's order allowing the amendment and directing expeditious disposal of the 2003 suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed and the impugned order of the lower court is quashed.

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9933 of 2010

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ravi Shankar Singh, S/O Late Brahmdeo Singh, R/O Village Ulli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Block Nauhatta,District Rohtas.

¶5

.... .... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar.

¶8

Rajeshwar Pandey, S/O Sri Janardan Pandey @ Lochan Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas. 3. Indramani Devi, W/O Late Kameshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶9

Snehlata Devi, D/O Late Kameshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶10

Premlata Devi, D/O Late Kameshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas. 6. Arbind Kumar Pandey, S/O Rajeshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas. 7. Pramod Kumar Pandey, S/O Rajeshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶11

Arun Kumar Pandey, S/O Rajeshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶12

Praveen Kumar Pandey, S/O Kameshwar Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas. 10. Manarawati Devi, D/O Late Janardan Pandey, R/O Village Ulibanahi,P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶13

Gauri Shankar Pathak, S/O Raghubir Pathak, R/O Village Baradih Bishunpur,P.S. Nasriganj, District- Rohtas Presently R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And Post Nauhatta,District Rohtas. 12. Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board Through President Of Bihar State Religious Trust Board Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1. 13. State Of Bihar Through Collector, Rohtas At Sasaram, P.O. Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

¶14

The Circle Officer,Nauhatta, P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District Rohtas.

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.9933 of 2010 (7) dt.07-01-2013

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

Sri Biswamitra Jee And Shiva Jee Temple Through Ravi Shankar Singh, S/O Late Brahmadeo Singh, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶18

Shaligram Singh, S/O Late Saman Singh, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶19

Satya Narayan Singh, S/O Late Dharmdeo Singh, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶20

Shivnath Pal F/O Haripal, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶21

Krishna Yadav, S/O Late Ram Nandan Yadav, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶22

Ram Keshwar Ram, S/O Late Bhadai Ram R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶23

Mahendra Pasi, S/O Sita Pasi, R/O Village Uli Banahi, P.S. And P.O. And Anchal Nauhatta,District- Rohtas.

¶24

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Singh, AC to SC 23 For the Respondent : M/s Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate and Nos. 2, 3, 6 to 9 Awadhesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate No. 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 7 07-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State,

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9933 of 2010 (7) dt.07-01-2013

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

the respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 to 9 and the respondent no. 12.

¶28

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.4.2010 passed in T.S. No. 97 of 2003 by which prayer for amendment in plaint has been rejected.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the amendments sought are merely formal in nature and they would not change the nature of suit. However, the court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.

¶30

Mr. K.N. Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has submitted that initially a line was taken by the plaintiff that the land in question was gifted in favour of the deities and now a change in stand is being sought to be done stating that the concerned lands were settled in favour of the deities, apart from several other amendments. It is admitted position that the issues are yet to be framed in this case.

¶31

In my considered opinion learned counsel for the contesting respondents has not been able to demonstrate before this Court as to how the amendment sought would change the nature as of suit or put forward any cogent reason for not allowing the amendments in plaint.

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.9933 of 2010 (7) dt.07-01-2013

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

Thus, in my opinion the impugned order passed in T.S. No. 97 of 2003 cannot be sustained in law and as such the same is quashed . I hold that the amendments are fit to allowed. Let the court below take necessary steps with regard to that expeditiously. However, in view of the fact that the title suit is of the year 2003 and, surprisingly even issues are yet to be framed, the court concerned is also directed to make efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit preferably within one year.

¶35

Accordingly this writ application stands allowed.

¶36

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

¶37

Spd/-

Ravi Shankar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Shankar Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braj Kishor Mahato Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Most. Bhagwati Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Habib Ansari @ Habib Mian and Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Nandan Pr Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nausi Farida Vs Md.Sakir Iquebal

The Bihar State Electricity Bo Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.