In a writ petition, the High Court examined an order allowing an amendment to a plaint at the end of trial in a title suit. It held the amendments were formal with compensation and dismissal of further relief, dismissing the writ.
The writ application was dismissed without any further relief being granted.
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.23080 of 2013
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.23080 of 2013 dt.06-12-2018 2/3
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. Md. Abu Haidar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-12-2018
Petitioners before this Court are defendants of Title Suit No. 58 of 1995 pending in the court of Munsif, Katihar. They have filed this writ application for setting aside the order dated 13.09.2013 whereby and whereunder the learned court below allowed the amendment petition at the fag end of trial.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. It appears that when the suit was fixed for judgment, the plaintiffs filed a petition for hearing on the point of law. The case was adjourned and an amendment petition was filed which after hearing was allowed. The amendment which has been allowed relates to disclosure of some facts relating to execution of sale deed. The plaintiffs have added one more paragraph as paragraph 10A wherein they have stated about the mode of allotment of share in plot no. 1997 and possession of the parties over the said land. The plaintiffs have further stated that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have sold the entire land to Karuna Devi wife Fuchhan Singh on 29.05.1982. The plaintiffs have further deleted R.S. Plot 2106 and reduced the area of 1997 by mentioning
Patna High Court CWJC No.23080 of 2013 dt.06-12-2018 3/3
49 decimal. The defendants who are petitioners before this Court filed objection and stated that the amendment was filed at the fag end of trial and so the court below ought to have rejected the amendment petition.
4. On going through the amendment petition and impugned order I find that the amendments are formal in nature and these do not change the nature of the suit. The court below while allowing the said amendment has compensated the petitioners by way of cost to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and also gave opportunity to file an additional written statement in the light of amended plaint.
5. In view of above facts, I do not find any merit in this writ application and is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
mkchy/-
| AFR/NAFR |
|---|
| CAV DATE |
| Uploading Date |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court below erred in allowing an amendment petition at the fag end of the trial.
Jiwachch Lal Singh and others
Kailash Narayan Singh and others
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
