Dismissed

Rajdhani Pandey v. Jag Narayan Singh and Ors.

Patna HC15 Dec 2016CWJC/14902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution refusing an application for amending plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court held that due diligence wasn't shown and no clerical mistake existed, dismissing the application while noting a right to object under Section 105 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment prayer was rejected; writ petition dismissed with liberty to raise objection under Section 105 CPC.

Rajdhani Pandey Vs Jag Narayan Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14902 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== Rajdhani Pandey S/O Late Bhrigunath Pandey Resident Of Village - Bhati, P.O. Kachnar, P.S. Raghunathpur, District - Siwan

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jag Narayan Singh S/O Ramupkar Singh

¶7

Baliram Singh S/O Ram Pukar Singh Resident Of Village - Kachnar, P.S. Raghunathpur, District - Siwan

¶8

Shashi Bhushan Pandey

¶9

Vidyabhushan Pandey both S/O Late Vidyadhar Pandey

¶10

Ved Prakash Pandey

¶11

Satya Prakash Pandey both S/O Late Shila Sharan Pandey

¶12

Girindra Pandey S/O Late Lalita Pandey Resident Of Village - Bhanti, P.S. Raghunathpur, District - Siwan, Presently road No.14, Gardanibagh, Patna

¶13

Bankey Mishra S/O Badru Mishra

¶14

Prabhunath Mishra S/O Late Satya Narayan Mishra

¶15

Mohan Mishra

¶16

Raj Nishwar Mishra both S/O Late Sudama Mishra

¶17

Bharat Mishra S/O Shankar Mishra

¶18

Kashinath Mishra

¶19

Dhruv Mishra both S/O Late Ramjanam Mishra Resident Of Village - Pipra, P.S. Raghunathpur, District – Siwan.

¶20

.... .... Respondent/s

¶21

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶22

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶23

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Date: 15-12-2016

¶25

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

The plaintiff is the petitioner in this application and has

¶27

questioned the legal acceptability of the impugned order by which the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.14902 of 2013 dt.15-12-2016

¶29

¶30

learned court below has turned down the prayer made by the plaintiff in his petition dated 09.05.2013 for amendment in the plaint.

¶31

The matrix of facts discloses that the suit was filed in the year 2004 for seeking relief with regard to the sale deed in favour of the defendants. The evidence of the parties was completed and the suit was posted for final argument. At that stage, the petition dated 09.05.2013 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint. The learned court below has taken into notice the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff for seeking the amendment and also the nature of amendment as sought by the plaintiff. It has been found by the learned court below that the khatiyan about which the plaintiff in his petition has taken the plea of non-availability has already been marked as Ext. 1 and 3/A in the suit on 01.04.2010. Even otherwise also, the nature of the amendment as it appears from the perusal of the petition (Annexure-3) does not substantiate the contention on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that it was due to clerical mistake that the facts sought to be brought in the plaint by amendment were left out. Even in view of Order 6 Rule 17 after the commencement of the trial the amendment in the plaint can be allowed only when the party seeking for amendment establishes the facts disclosing due diligence for not preferring the amendment at the earlier stage of the suit. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, is not inclined to invoke the

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.14902 of 2013 dt.15-12-2016

¶33

¶34

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶36

However, the petitioner shall be entitled to raise his

¶37

objection under Section 105 C.P.C. if permissible.

¶38

(V. Nath, J)

¶39

Devendra/-

¶40

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
UploadingDate	19.12.2016
Transmission Date

Rajdhani Pandey v. Jag Narayan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdhani Pandey v. Jag Narayan Singh 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

Indradeo Gupta and Ors. Vs Kirtiyanand Manjhi

Nathuni Choudhary Vs Rani Kunwar and Ors.

Amitesh Kumar Vs Smt. Kumari Vandana

Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr. Vs Shankar Prasad Singh @ Jai Shankar Prasad and Ors.

Ganauri Sao and Ors. Vs Krishna Prasad and Ors.

Durgesh Nandan Verma @ D. Rajan and Anr. Vs Sumeshwar Prasad And Ors.