The Patna High Court held that the impugned order allowing amendment of plaint regarding a subsequent purchase during suit pendency was within jurisdiction of the Civil Court. No interference was warranted.
Interference against order allowing amendment of plaint dismissed.
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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1111 of 2016 (2) dt.05-10-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1111 of 2016
====================================================== Ram Asis Rai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Chhote Lal Rai & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 2 05-10-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Neeraj Kumar for the
Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Neeraj Kumar for the petitioner.
Perused the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr. Div.) IV, Samastipur in Title Suit No.64 of 1990 whereby the learned Court below allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents considering the decision of the Supreme Court.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that by this amendment application, the plaintiff prayed for amendment of some facts in the plaint regarding the subsequent event to the effect that the plaintiffs have purchased some part of the property during the pendency of the suit in the year 2014 from the intervener-defendant, third party.
So far this subsequent event is concerned, there is no denial on the part of the petitioners who are defendants in the suit.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1111 of 2016 (2) dt.05-10-2016 2
Now, therefore, during the pendency of the suit, there is some subsequent event took place and, therefore, this subsequent event is being brought by the plaintiff by way of amendment.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, when the Court below has considered the decision of the Supreme Court and passed the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., in no case, it can be said that the order is without jurisdiction or it is irrational or it has been passed in the manner not permitted by law so as to call for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Thus, this Civil Miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is maintainable and eligible for supervisory jurisdiction.
Whether the subsequent event of purchase during pendency of suit justifies the amendment application granted by lower court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Asis Rai
Chhote Lal Rai
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
