Allowed

Jai Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. Gaurishankar Chaudhary and Ors.

Patna HC5 Jan 2018C.Misc./626/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 setting aside a Subordinate Judge's order which dismissed an amendment petition for correcting a survey plot number. The Court held that the error was typographical and allowed correction under Section 152 of CPC even after the suit was decreed.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the amendment petition dated 17.05.2016 is set aside, and the amendment petition allowing correction of survey plot number is allowed.

Jai Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs Gaurishankar Chaudhary and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.626 of 2016

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Jai Bahadur Singh

¶4

Jai Prakash Singh Both S/o Late Thag Kurami

¶5

Upendra Singh S/o Late Rameshwar Singh All are R/o village - Kashila Pachbeniya, P.S. Asawn, District - Siwan

¶6

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶7

Gaurishankar Chaudhary

¶8

Dhaneshwar Chaudhary both S/o Late Ramrup Chaudhary

¶9

Dudh Nath Chaudhary

¶10

Ramnath Chaudhary both s/o Late Shankar Chaudhary All R/o Village - Babhanauli, Paragana Andar, P.S. Aswan, District - Siwan 5. Most. Sanjharo W/o Late Ganesh Chaudhary

¶11

Sanjay Chaudhary

¶12

Manoj Chaudhary both S/o Late Ganesh Chaudhary

¶13

Malti Devi

¶14

Kanti Devi

¶15

Sangeeta Devi all are D/o Late Ganesh Chaudhary all are village Babhanauli, Paragana Andar, P.S. Aswan, District - Siwan 11. Anil Kumar Pandey

¶16

Chunu Kumar Pandey Both S/o Late Jagat Kishor Pandey 13. Punam Devi

¶17

Renu Devi Both D/o Late Jagat Kishor Pandey

¶18

Raj Kishor Pandey S/o Late Ramashankar Pandey

¶19

Prithavi Kunwar W/o Jai Nath Pandey

¶20

Phulmala Kunwar W/o Jai Nath Pandey

¶21

Abhay Nand Pandey S/o Late Jai Nath Pandey 19. Rubi Kumara

¶22

Bullet Kumara

¶23

Shikha Kumara All are D/o Late Jai Nath Pandey

¶24

Shivlok Pandey

¶25

Baliram Pandey All are S/o Late Rambriskh Pandey

¶26

Ramesh Pandey S/o Late Shivshankar Pandey

¶27

Brij Kishori Devi

¶28

Raj Kishori Devi Both D/o Late Bansharopan Bharti

¶29

Rameshwar Bharti

¶30

Sudama Bharti both S/o Late Ramnaesh Bharti

¶31

Bacha Bharti W/o Ram Gorakh Bharti

¶32

Kasha Devi

¶33

Gyanti Devi Both D/o Late Ramgorakh Bharti

¶34

Phulamata Devi W/o Late Ram Vinayak Bharti

¶35

Geeta Devi D/o Late Ram Vinayak Bharti

¶36

Bablu Bharti

¶37

Vikash Bharti

¶38

Akash Bharti All S/o Late Parmatma Bharti All are R/o village - Kashila Pachbenia, P.S. Aswan, District - Siwan

¶39

======================================================

¶40

.... .... Respondent/s

¶41

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.626 of 2016 (4) dt.05-01-2018

¶42

2/3

¶43

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Kant Mr. Navin Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶44

4 05-01-2018

¶45

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 to 4 even after service of notice.

¶46

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.05.2016 by which the learned Subordinate Judge Ist, Siwan dismissed the petition of the petitioner for amendment of one survey plot number in the schedule of the plaint.

¶47

3. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.360 of 2003. The suit was decreed ex.-parte on 28.4.2006. The defendant filed petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree but the same was dismissed and the defendants filed Misc. Appeal against the order dismissing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner filed petition for amendment of survey plot No.2549 in place of 4549 of khata No.407 as mentioned in the plaint but learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition of the petitioners on the ground that since the suit has already been decreed, the

¶48

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.626 of 2016 (4) dt.05-01-2018

¶49

3/3

¶50

amendment petition is not maintainable.

¶51

4. I am of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed jurisdictional error. The amendment can be filed at any stage even during the pendency of appeal after disposal of the suit. Even such typographical error can be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC. The amendment is of corrective nature as the plaintiff has stated different survey plot of khata No.407 but one of the survey plot has been wrongly typed as 4549 in place of 2549.

¶52

5. Accordingly, the order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Title Suit No.360 of 2003 is set aside and the amendment petition is allowed. Accordingly, this Civil Misc. application is allowed.

¶53

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶54

Sanjeev/-

¶55

U T

Jai Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. Gaurishankar Chaudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. Gaurishankar Chaudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Kaleshwari Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yadubansh Prasad Vs Birendra Kumar and Anr.

Asharfi Choudhary and Anr. Vs Bhogi Sah and Ors.

Jaldhari Sah and Ors. Vs Most. Paro Devi and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs Shadhu Saran Singh and Ors.

Hare Ram Mahto @ Gonar Mahto @ Gonar Mahton @ Hare Ram Mahton and Ors. Vs Shankar Matho and Ors.