Disposed¶17

Ramjee Prasad v. Vijay Kumar

Patna HC30 Jan 2026C.Misc./330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982; Title Eviction Suit No. 96 of 2011; Civil Judge (SD) IV Patna; landlord-tenant relationship; title/share of landlord not under consideration; stage of final arguments; eviction; Patna High Court C.Misc. No.330 of 2025; Civil Revision No.177 of 2024; disposed with two-month disposal direction.

What did the court decide?

The instant application stands disposed of without interference with the impugned order; the learned Trial Court was requested to dispose of the eviction suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months, and both parties were directed to diligently co-operate in the trial. ¶17

Ramjee Prasad Vs Vijay Kumar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 96 of 2011 allowing the defendant's amendment application in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be interfered with. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The proposed amendment is not going to create any hindrance or affect the outcome of the case in any manner, because the title or share of the landlord in respect of the suit property is not under consideration.

¶16

Key takeaways

The only issue to be decided in this case is the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (S. B. Pd. Singh, J.), by oral order dated 30-01-2026, disposed of Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.330 of 2025 (arising in Civil Revision No.177 of 2024), wherein the petitioner challenged the order dated 18.09.2024 of the learned Civil Judge (SD) IV, Patna in Title Eviction Suit No. 96 of 2011 allowing the defendant's amendment application in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Observing that the suit, filed under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, is at the stage of final arguments, that the respondent is not inclined to adduce further oral or documentary evidence, and that the title or share of the landlord in respect of the suit property is not under consideration, the Court held that the proposed amendment would create no hindrance nor affect the outcome, the only issue being the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Trial Court was requested to dispose of the matter preferably within two months, with both parties directed to diligently co-operate in the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.330 of 2025 In

¶2

CIVIL REVISION No.177 of 2024

¶3

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

¶4

Ramjee Prasad Son of Late Bainath Sao, Resident of Mohalla - Bakarganj, Gola Raod, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vijay Kumar Son of Late Prayag Sao, Resident of Mohalla - Bakarganj, Gola Road, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. - Pirbahore, District- Patna.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Upendra Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mrigendra Kumar ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 30-01-2026

¶12

The instant civil miscellaneous application has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 96 of 2011 by learned Civil Judge (SD) IV, Patna whereby the amendment application by way of amendment in the written statement filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in Annexure-1, (the amendment petition) the defendant has clearly admitted that he is a tenant of the suit premises; however, it is specifically contended that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner/landlord of the triple-storied house bearing No. 73/65, Circle No. 9, Ward No. 37.

¶14

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.330 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026 2/3

¶15

It is further submitted that the present case has been filed under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, wherein the Court is required to examine only whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists in respect of the suit property or not? The extent of the ownership or the total share of any party is not required to be examined and it is not an issue in the present case.

¶16

Moreover, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is not inclined to adduce any further oral or documentary evidence, which fact has also been recorded in the impugned order. Since the case is at the stage of final arguments. Hence the proposed amendment is not going to create any hindrance or affect the outcome of the case in any manner, because the title or share of the landlord in respect of the suit property is not under consideration. The only issue to be decided in this case is the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

¶17

In the above circumstance, learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of this matter as early as possible preferably within a period of two months. Both the parties

¶18

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.330 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026 3/3

¶19

are also directed to diligently co-operate in the trial.

¶20