Dismissed

Gorakh Nath Singh v. Raj Kumar Singh

Patna HC19 Sept 2019C.Misc./1395/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a title suit. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the amendment sought to introduce a new case on joint property, thereby changing the suit's nature and requiring reopening, which was not legally permissible.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution as lacking merit.

Gorakh Nath Singh Vs Raj Kumar Singh — Property and Title | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1395 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Gorakh Nath Singh Son of Late Jagannath Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldvinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶4

... ... Plaintiff/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Raj Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Kewal Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶7

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Kewal Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶8

Basmato Kuer Wife of Late Ram Kewal Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶9

Kamleshwar Singh Son of Kapildeo Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶10

Ranjeet Singh Son of Sheo Pujan Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶11

Sudhir Kumar Singh Son of Braj Nandan Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶12

Suman Kumar Singh Son of Braj Nandan Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, P.O. Vishnupura, District- Saran.

¶13

Namita Rani Daughter of Braj Nandan Singh and Wife of Jitendra Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Lejuar, P.S. Daudpur, District- Saran.

¶14

Pankaj Prasun Son of Rana Pratap Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶15

Prashant Tarun Son of Rana Pratap Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶16

Prafulla Son of Rana Pratap Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶17

Rana Pratap Singh Son of Shila Nath Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶18

Rinki Devi Wife of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶19

Reema Devi Wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶20

Raadhika Devi Wife of Ranjeet Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶21

Ratnesh Kumar Singh Son of Ranjeet Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶22

Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Ranjeet Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶23

Tapeshwari Devi Wife of Kamlesh Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶24

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1395 of 2019 dt.19-09-2019 2/5

¶25

Braj Nandan Singh Son of Shila Nath Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶26

Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Hariji Son of Ram Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶27

Amit Kumar Singh @ Hareram Son of Ram Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶28

Rima Devi Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶29

Guriya Devi Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶30

Sushma Devi Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶31

Gayatri Devi Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶32

Manisha Kumari Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶33

Soni Kumari Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Vishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶34

Rajeev Kumar Singh Son of Kamleshwar Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶35

Parmeshara Kuer Wife of Sheo Pujan Singh Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran. Defendants/Respondent 1^st .

¶36

Anju Devi Widow of Late Haresh Upadhyay Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶37

Saurabh Kumari Daughter of Late Haresh Upadhyay Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶38

Priyanka Kumari Daughter of Late Haresh Upadhyay Resident of VillageVishnupura, P.O. Goldinganj, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

¶39

... ... Plaintiff-Respondents 2^nd Set.

¶40

====================================================== Appearance : For the petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate Mr. Navin Nikunj, Advocate Mr. Koshalendra Rai, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

Date : 19-09-2019

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1395 of 2019 dt.19-09-2019 3/5

¶44

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Judge14, Chapra in Title Suit No. 165 of 1997.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without applying the relevant provisions and principles dismissed the amendment petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by the plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 15.05.2019. He contended that the the trial court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendments were an additional ground to elaborate the plea of fraud and, hence, legally permissible. It also failed to appreciate that neither any new property is added nor any new evidence is to be led. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, he pleaded that if the impugned order is allowed to stand it will occasion in failure of justice to the petitioner.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record, I find that one Sunaina Kuer had filed Title Suit No. 165 of 1997. The relief sought for by the original plaintiff was to declare that the sale deed executed by her in favour of defendants between 07.07.1996 and 24.06.1996 are

¶47

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1395 of 2019 dt.19-09-2019 4/5

¶48

null and void documents and not binding upon her and if she is dispossessed of the properties during the pendency of the suit, then a decree be passed for repossession. The contention of the original plaintiff was that her thumb impression over some papers was obtained on the pretext of her treatment and when she came to know that those documents were fraudulently used for the purpose of execution of sale deed with respect to the properties in question, she filed the suit for the reliefs noted hereinabove.

¶49

The original plaintiff died after her evidence was adduced. She was subsequently substituted by her legal representative. After the evidences on behalf of the parties were adduced, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed seeking amendment in the pleading of the plaint. The amendment sought for is that the property in question is also joint property of the husband of the original plaintiff.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that even though the prayer for amendment has been made at belated stage, the same would be of no consequence as the only thing the plaintiff is pleading by way of amendment is that if the properties were joint, the original plaintiff could not have individually executed the sale deeds.

¶51

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1395 of 2019 dt.19-09-2019 5/5

¶52

In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Apparently, by way of amendment, the petitioner is trying to introduce a new case. The same would require reopening the entire suit and it would also change the nature of the suit.

¶53

In that view of the matter, I see no illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the court below.

¶54

The application lacks merit. It is dismissed,

¶55

accordingly.

¶56

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶57

kanchan/-

¶58

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	24.09.2019
Transmission Date

Gorakh Nath Singh v. Raj Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakh Nath Singh v. Raj Kumar Singh

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

Gajendra Singh Vs the State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary Department of Home, Government of Biahr, Patna

Deoki Prasad Agarwal and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Asia Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Pandit Vs Baharatjee Prasad and Ors.

Ram Krishna Pandey Vs Sudarsan Giri Mahanth

Satish Kumar Singh Vs Devi Kumar Singh