High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashment of the lower appellate court's order rejecting a petitioner's application to amend a title suit plaint to add facts about lands built during his custody.
Writ application dismissed; order of lower appellate court rejecting amendment petition remains.
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.10557 of 2015
======================================================
Barho Prasad son of Late Ram Deo Mahto, resident of village- Ramna Sherghati, P.O. and Police Station- Sherghati, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajkishore Srivastava, Advocate Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate Mrs Ritika Rani, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-12-2018
Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by ADJ-VI, Gaya in Title Appeal No.03 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected the amendment petition filed by the appellant to amend the plaint.
2 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
3 . Petitioner had filed Title Suit No.18 of 2004 seeking relief to restrain the defendants from causing any interference in his peaceful possession over the suit land and also for recovery of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10557 of 2015 dt.07-12-2018 2/3
possession in the event if found out of possession. The suit was dismissed by trial court against which the petitioner filed Title Appeal No.03 of 2015. In lower appellant court the petitioner filed an amendment petition on 21.01.2015 which after hearing was rejected.
4. On perusal of impugned order and documents on record, I find that the defendants at para-14 of their written statement have specifically stated that they have bounded the land purchased by them from all four sides with brick-wall and also constructed two rooms thereon. The said rooms were let out on rent to Chaukidar Tahshil Sherghatti on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. A pleader commissioner was also appointed to inspect the land. The learned trial court at para-57 of its judgment has also stated about the existence of 25 shop rooms over the suit land. The petitioner/plaintiff wants to add one more paragraph as 10A to this effect that he was arrested and sent to jail in Complaint Case No.196 of 2004 and during his custody period, the defendant nos.1 and 2 built two shop rooms over some of the portion of the disputed land. This fact stands falsified from the pleading of the defendant as pleaded in the written statement as well as findings given by trial court at para-57 of the judgment. The learned court below considering all these facts has rejected the amendment petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10557 of 2015 dt.07-12-2018 3/3
5 . In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit
in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
B.Kr./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 11.12.2018 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ application to quash an order rejecting an amendment petition in a title suit is maintainable.
Barho Prasad
Asha Devi
Chandradeo Prasad
Vijay Kumar
Chanchal devi
Kail Singh
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
