This writ application sought quashing of an order refusing plaintiffs' amendment petitions nos.1 and 3. The High Court held these amendments did not alter the suit's nature or prejudice the defendant, setting aside the rejection.
The impugned order refusing amendment petitions nos.1 and 3 is set aside and the writ application is allowed.
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.11326 of 2015
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Sri Rajmangal Singh s/o Sri Amir Rai, All R/o- Village- Suratpur, P.S and Anchal- Kanti, P.O Panapur Kariyat- District Muzaffarpur
| =============== | ... ... =============================== |
Respondent ======== |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance : | ||
| For the Petitioner/s | : Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate |
|
| For the Respondent/s =============== |
: Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate =============================== |
======== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-12-2018
Petitioners before this court are plaintiffs of Title Suit No.124 of 1992 pending in the court of Additional Munsif X, Muzaffarpur (West). They have filed this writ application for quashing some part of order dated 04.03.2015 whereunder prayer with respect to amendment nos.1 and 3 of their amendment petition was rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11326 of 2015 dt.10-12-2018 2/2
stands mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint which relates to same village. By amendment no.3, the plaintiffs want to add khata no.106 before khesra no.116 in Schedule A of the plaint. The plot no.116/P and its boundary as mentioned in Schedule are not disputed. These two amendments are also simple in nature and do not change the nature of the suit as the plot in dispute remains the same. The learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact that these amendments neither change the nature of the suit nor prejudice the defendant in any way.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
Harish/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 11.12.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court below was justified in rejecting amendment petitions nos.1 and 3 of the plaintiffs that did not change the nature of the suit.
Whether the impugned order refusing amendment petitions should be set aside by the writ court.
Bandana Kumari
Archana Kumari
Abhay Kumar
Rajmangal Singh
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
