Petitioners challenged an order allowing amendment to a plaint in a suit for specific performance to add parties selling the land. The High Court declined interference under Article 227, finding no serious prejudice to defendants.
Writ application dismissed quashing the order allowing amendment of plaint.
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.19600 of 2010
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Musowir
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
2 06-08-2015 Heard counsel for the petitioners in support of the application which has been filed questioning the sustainability of the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Katihar in T.S. No. 176 of 2008.
The petitioners are the principal defendants of the suit which was filed for specific performance of contract. During the Pendency of the suit the defendant(s) sold the land with two different persons. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment
in the plaint and prayed for addition of parties which after
Patna High Court CWJC No.19600 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2015
2/2
hearing the parties has been allowed. The present writ application questions the said order. The court below having heard the parties and keeping in focus the cause of justice has passed the order which in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be interfered with particularly when no serious prejudice of any kind appears to have been caused to the defendants.
The writ application is dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
HR/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing amendment to the plaint to add necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court’s order permitting amendment of plaint under Article 227 jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumitra Devi W/o Late Shiv Narayan Mahto and others
Bishundeo Prasad Sah and others
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
