Dismissed

Chitrarekha Devi v. Most.Fulo Devi and Ors.

Patna HC10 Aug 2015CWJC/19413/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Civil Jurisdiction case, this Court dismissed the petitioner's application against an order allowing a belated amendment in a partition suit. The Court held that Article 227 was not appropriate for such matters and directed parties to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; parties directed to appear before the trial court within three weeks for expedited disposal.

Chitrarekha Devi Vs Most.Fulo Devi and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19413 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== 1. Chitrarekha Devi W/O Late Angad Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda .... .... Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Most. Fulo Devi W/O Late Sheo Sagar Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 2. Anuj Singh S/O Ganesh Singh R/O Vill.- Ahiyapur, P.S.- Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura 3. Rakesh Kumar S/O Anuj Singh R/O Vill.- Ahiyapur, P.S.- Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura 4. Nilu Devi D/O Anuj Singh, W/O Dinesh Singh R/O Vill.- Pora, P.S.Kadirganj, Distt.- Nawada 5. Silu Devi D/O Anuj Singh, W/O Pramod Singh R/O Vill.- Sakulachak, P.S.- Kadirganj, Distt.- Nawada 6. Pappi Devi D/O Anuj Singh, W/O Vipul Singh R/O Vill.- Mustafapur, P.S.- Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai 7. Pramila Kumari D/O Anuj Singh R/O Vill.- Ahiyapur, P.S.- Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura 8. Rajo Singh @ Rajendra Singh S/O Rameshwar Singh R/O Vill.Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 9. Murari Singh S/O Late Sheo Sagar Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 10. Golu Sharma Minor S/O Murari Singh And Under The Guardianship Of His Father Murari Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 11. Anil Singh S/O Late Bindeshwari Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 12. Sunil Singh S/O Late Bindeshwari Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 13. Bibhuti Sharma Minor S/O Anil Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Anil Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 14. Bikrant Sharma Minor S/O Anil Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Anil Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 15. Diwakar Singh Minor S/O Sunil Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Sunil Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 16. Subhakar Singh Minor S/O Sunil Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Sunil Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 17. Arun Singh S/O Rajo Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda 18. Dinkar Singh Minor S/O Arun Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Arun Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda 19. Prabhas Singh Minor S/O Arun Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Arun Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.-

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.19413 of 2010 (3) dt.10-08-2015

¶4

2/4

¶5

Nalanda

¶6

Bibhakar Singh Minor S/O Arun Singh And Under The Guardianship Of Their Father Arun Singh R/O Vill.- Mahimachak, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.Nalanda Defendants/respondents 1^st set. 21. Smt. Ranju Devi W/O Mukesh Sharma R/O Vill.-Keshopur, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 22. Chunchun Devi W/O Uday Singh R/O Vill.- Barauna, P.S.- Chandi, Distt.- Nalanda

¶7

Munni Devi W/O Mithlesh Prasad R/O Vill.- Keshopur, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda

¶8

.... ....Plaintiffs/ Respondents 2nd set. … …. Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh

¶9

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 10-08-2015 Heard both sides.

¶11

The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 122 of 2001 has filed

¶12

the present writ application aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda whereby on an application dated 26.4.2010 filed by the defendant seeking amendment in paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the written statement was allowed. Such amendment was sought after much delay. The court appreciating the fact that such amendment was sought belatedly after filing of the written statement imposed cost on the defendant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant sought amendment on the basis of vague pleadings.

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.19413 of 2010 (3) dt.10-08-2015

¶15

3/4

¶16

Some more land is sought to be inserted and/or made part of the suit land for which partition was sought by the plaintiff.

¶17

On the other hand, counsel for the defendant has submitted that by amendment the defendant has only placed on record certain facts relating to the land held by the family which was alienated by the plaintiff. By such amendment the nature of the suit does not change. It will not generate further litigation.

¶18

Order 6 Rule 17 confers wide jurisdiction to the Court to allow amendment in the plaint/written statement in the interest of justice. The other purpose is to minimize the litigation. The trial Court in the impugned order has clearly found that the nature of the suit in such amendment does not change. Certain lands are sought to be made subject matter of the lis on the basis of the pleadings made thereunder. If the amendment is allowed the party shall be required to prove their case. All issues shall now be considered by the trial Court.

¶19

In my view, exercise of discretionary/supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, in such matter vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction.

¶20

The application is dismissed.

¶21

The partition suit of 2001 is lying at the nascent

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.19413 of 2010 (3) dt.10-08-2015

¶23

4/4

¶24

stage as submitted by both the parties. Considering the above, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the trial Court along with a copy of this order within three weeks to seek expeditious disposal of the suit enabling the Court in seisin of the matter to proceed for disposal of the matter expeditiously.

¶25

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶26

Shyam/-

¶27

Chitrarekha Devi v. Most.Fulo Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitrarekha Devi v. Most.Fulo 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

Ram Daras Mahto Vs Rajeswari Singh

Ganesh Prasad and Anr. Vs Amresh Prasad and Ors.

Musmat Devmati Kunwar and Anr. Vs Brahmdev Prasad and Ors.

Indradeo Tiwari Vs Lal Bachan Tiwari and Ors.

Ahsan Ahmad Vs Md.Khurshid Alam and Ors.

Mustafa Kamal Vs Deelip Been and Anr.