Allowed

Shankar Mahto v. Ramdeo Mahto

Patna HC4 Sept 2023C.Misc./1198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a petitioners application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to correct the year from 1978 to 1971. The High Court set aside the Sub-Judges rejection, holding that the change does not affect the suits nature or prejudice respondents.

What did the court decide?

The application sought by the plaintiffs-petitioners to amend the year from 1978 to 1971 is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the application set aside.

Shankar Mahto Vs Ramdeo Mahto — Succession and Inheritance | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1198 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Shankar Mahto Son of late Budhu Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶4

Smt. Geeta Devi, Wife of Shankar Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶5

Sujeet Kumar, Son of Shankar Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶6

Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Shankar Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶7

Rakesh Kumar, Sons of Shanker Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.1. Smt. Ramdulari Devi Widow of Late Ramdeo Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶11

1.2. Shanker Mahto S/o Late Ramdeo Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶12

1.3. Anita Devi Widow of Late Bhola Prasad Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶13

Ramashray Mahto, Son of Late Dharam Chand Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶14

Prakash Mahto, Son of late Dharam Chand Mahto Resident of Village Harpur, Pusa, P.O. Pusa, P.S. - Pusa (Tajpur), District- Samastipur.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶18

14 04-09-2023 Heard the parties.

¶19

By the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by

¶20

the learned Sub-Judge, II, Samastipur in T.S. No. 167/12 / R.N. 1413/18 the learned Judge has rejected the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners for amendment with regard to correction of

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1198 of 2018(14) dt.04-09-2023 2/3

¶22

year from 1978 to 1971 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought for does not change the nature of the Suit and the evidence of the plaintiff has just began and therefore no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants submits that earlier also an application for amendment on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and therefore the present application is not maintainable.

¶25

I have heard and considered the submission of both the parties.

¶26

The impugned order dated 21.05.2018 is a cryptic order saying that the nature of the Suit will be changed.

¶27

In my opinion the impugned order cannot be sustained as the nature of the suit will remain the same and the amendment sought for is just for the change of year from 1978 to 1971 and no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants.

¶28

In view of the above, this application is allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, II, Samastipur in T.S. No. 167/12 / R.N. 1413/18 is set aside and the amendment

¶30

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1198 of 2018(14) dt.04-09-2023 3/3

¶31

sought for by the plaintiffs-petitioners vide application dated 29.02.2018 is allowed.

¶32

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶33

Vikas/-

¶34

Shankar Mahto v. Ramdeo Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Mahto v. Ramdeo Mahto

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

Krishna Murari Tiwari Vs Ram Krit Tiwari

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs Ram Babu Sah and Ors.

Ram Kishore Singh Vs Kanti Devi and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh Vs Most. Shanti Devi (Expunged vide order dated 13-04-2023)

Nathuni Pandit Vs Bajrangi Sah and Ors.

Ram Sanjiwan Choudhary Vs Arun Kumar Rai and Ors.