Allowed

Suresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Collector, Gaya

Patna HC6 Sept 2022C.Misc./391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous jurisdiction matter, the High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of an amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a proceeding under Section 152 CPC. The Court held that Section 141 CPC mandates applying suit procedure to miscellaneous cases.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.04.2017 rejecting the amendment petition is set aside and the current application is allowed.

Suresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar Through The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.391 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Suresh Singh Son of late Kishan Das Singh Vishnu Pat Road, Dakhin Darwaja, Chand Choura, P.S. Civil Lines, Gaya, Gaya.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar Through The District Collector, Gaya

¶7

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy-Gp18 ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 06-09-2022

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

¶11

By the impugned order, dated 15.04.2017, passed by

¶12

learned Sub Judge-II, Gaya, the amendment sought by the petitioner in the petition filed by him under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a reference case, arising out of the Land Acquisition Act, judgment and award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29.01.200 and 11.02.2000, respectively. According to the petitioner, there was some clerical and arithmetical error in the judgment and as such, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the same. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed another petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 141 of the

¶14

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.391 of 2018(3) dt.06-09-2022 2/3

¶15

Code of Civil Procedure for bringing some additional facts by way of amendment. He further submits that the rejection of the amendment of the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Court below as not maintainable is bad in law inasmuch as the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to suit shall follow in miscellaneous proceedings. Accordingly, the rejection of the petition for amendment filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure as not maintainable is fit to be set aside.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the State does not controvert the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that in miscellaneous proceeding, the procedure prescribed in the Code in regard to suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in the court of civil jurisdiction.

¶18

The argument of the petitioner is that the correction of clerical and/or arithmetical error in the judgment/award comes under miscellaneous proceeding and accordingly Misc. Case No. 11 of 2000 has been instituted. In this miscellaneous case,

¶19

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.391 of 2018(3) dt.06-09-2022 3/3

¶20

an amendment petition, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed.

¶21

Taking into consideration the fact that amendment has been sought in the miscellaneous case and as per Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure prescribed in the of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in the miscellaneous case, I come to the conclusion that the finding of the learned Court below that amendment petition, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable is erroneous and accordingly, the impugned order, dated 15.04.2017, is set aside.

¶22

This application is allowed.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

¶24

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶25

U √

Suresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Collector, Gaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Collector, Gaya

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

Baidhnath Prasad Vs Gopaljee Prasad and Anr.

Dudheshwar Singh Vs Naresh Siongh @ Naresh Ravani

Shambhu Nath Chaudhary and Ors. Vs Most. Champa Kunwar and Ors.

Vikash Chandra Kaushik Vs Shri Birendra Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Ghyasuddin Vs Ramesh Chaudhary and Ors.

Siya Ram Pandit, Vs Sheikh Fajle Rehman