Petitioners sought quashing of an order allowing an amendment to a title suit filed by respondents. The court held the amendments were formal and did not change the suit's nature, dismissing the writ application for lack of merit.
This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19397 of 2014
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. V.R.P.Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2018
Defendant of Title Suit No.53 of 2001 pending in the
Court of Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi has filed this application for quashing the order dated 22.07.2014 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff/respondents was allowed.
2 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
3 . It appears that the respondents filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession over the land mentioned in schedule given at the foot of the plaint. The plaintiffs further sought relief to declare the order passed in Consolidation
Patna High Court CWJC No.19397 of 2014 dt.04-12-2018 2/2
Appeal No.54 of 1983 on the basis of compromise petition as not binding on the plaintiffs with respect to 2 ½ decimal of land of plot no.724, 728 and 731. The petitioners filed amendment petition for making some necessary correction in some of the paragraphs of the plaint and also to add a relief for recovery of possession from portion of suit land on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, he has been dispossessed by the petitioners. The learned court below allowed the amendment petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. The learned court below further gave an opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement with respect to amended plaint. The plaintiffs have examined some of the witness and his evidence has not been closed till the date.
4 . On perusal of pleading of both the parties as well as impugned order, I find that the amendment as allowed are formal in nature and do not change the nature of the suit.
5 . In view of above facts, I do not find any merit in this writ application. This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
B.Kr./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 07.12.2018 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ application can be sustained to quash an order allowing an amendment of a title suit which strengthened the pleadings on formal grounds.
Whether the amendment petition filed in Civil Suit No.53 of 2001 altered the field of controversy.
Raghunath Thakur
Chandra Bhushan Thakur
Ramadin Pandey
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
