This miscellaneous order dismissed an application seeking to amend a civil plaint to void a partition document, upholding the trial court's rejection of the late amendment as non-bona fide and dilatory.
Application for amendment of plaint is 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 MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.144 of 2018
======================================================
Shiv Bachan Chaturvedi @ Shiv Bachan Chaubey S/o Late Ganga Dayal Choubey, Resident of Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashwini Kumar Rai For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is plaintiff in a partition suit filed in the year 1994 bearing Title Suit No. 86 / 1994 and at the verge of disposal of the Suit inasmuch as argument of both the parties have almost concluded, the petitioner filed an amendment application on 18-09-2017 for amendment of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.144 of 2018(7) dt.15-09-2022 2/3
the plaint and add in paragraph-9 of the same that the document dated 27-05-1992 relating to partition is false and fabricated and the same is not binding over the plaintiff and further amendment has been sought in para- 2 of the relief to the extent that it should be added that the document dated 27.05.1992 is null and void.
Learned trial court considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and the fact that both the parties have submitted documents dated 27.5.1992 in their favour and against them and the same has been exhibited as per law and the plaintiff- petitioner was having knowledge of the said document but he did not show any diligence earlier and did not seek to amend the plaint came to conclusion that the amendment sought is not bonafide and the same has been brought at the fag end of the suit in order to delay its disposal .
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. The facts are not disputed. The petitioner has filed amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the Title Suit when the Suit was at the verge of the disposal. Accordingly, I do not find any jurisdictional
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.144 of 2018(7) dt.15-09-2022 3/3
jurisdictional error in the impugned order and as such, this civil miscellaneous application stands dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court had jurisdiction to reject the petitioner's dilatory amendment application filed at the end of the suit.
Shiv Bachan Chaturvedi @ Shiv Bachan Chaubey
Gulabo Devi
Shiv Shankar Choubey
Shiv Das Coubey
Ravi Shankar Choubey
Rama Kant Choubey
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
