Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Chandra Dutta vs Bihar School Examination Board on 21 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 1171
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2019
----
Gopal Chandra Dutta ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
2. Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University at present Kolhan University, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West.
3. Jharkhand State Bar Council, Ranchi
4. Principal, BSS Pabrenda High School, Sonari, Jamshedpur
5. Principal, Mrs. KMPM, Inter College, Jamshedpur
6. Principal, Jamshedpur Co-operative College, Jamshedpur.
7. Principal, Jamshedpur Co-operative College, Jamshedpur ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P.Roy, Advocate
Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate
----
st
Order No. 06 : Dated 21 November, 2019
This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 01.02.2019 passed in Title Suit No.68 of 2013 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur is under challenge whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff dated 14.12.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected under which the prayer has been made to correct the name of the plaintiff mentioned in the certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board and in other certificate i.e. Gopal Mallick, son of Shankar Mallick as Gopal Chandra Dutta, son of Surendra Nath Dutta.
The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed a suit being Title Suit No. 68 of 2013 praying therein for a decree against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the correct name of the plaintiff and his father is Gopal -2- Chandra Dutta and Surendra Nath Dutta and in every record of the school and university the aforesaid name be read as above.
The respondents have put appearance as also filed written statement disputing the ground agitated as also the relief prayed for in the plaint for giving a declaration to that effect.
After framing of the issues, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been as would appear from Annexure-3 annexed to the writ petition, the plaintiff has sought for leave of the trial court to amend in the plaint in the following paragraph which reads hereunder as :-
"5. ... ... ...
A) In Para 3 of the plaint word 'wrongly' should be amendment as inadvertently.
B) In paragraph 6 of the plaint the word wrong should be amended as different name.
C) That this plaintiff wants the amend the prayers in the plaint para 16 Sub Para (a) - For a decree against a defendants and in favour of the plaintiff declaring that GOPAL MALLICK and GOPAL CHANDRA DUTTA is the same person i.e. the plaintiff and SHANKAR MALLICK and SURENDRA NATH DUTTA is the same person that is the father of the plaintiff and these two names of the plaintiff and his father mention in the educational certificates of the plaintiff be declare that both names above mentions are the plaintiff, and his father."
The substantive amendment sought for is under paragraph 5(C) whereby and whereunder the plaintiff has sought for leave to amend the prayers in the plaint at para 16 Sub Para (a) - For a decree against a defendants and in favour of the plaintiff declaring that GOPAL MALLICK and GOPAL CHANDRA DUTTA is the same person.
The said amendment petition has been objected by the respondents and -3- thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 01.02.2019 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if such amendment would be allowed, the nature and character of the suit will not be changed, rather, if it will not be allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.
While on the other hand, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bihar School Examination Board has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order taking into consideration the relief prayed in the original plaint which is for a declaration to the effect of a decree against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Gopal Chandra Dutta, declaring that the correct name of the plaintiff and his father is Gopal Chandra Dutta and Surendra Nath Dutta respectively and now amendment has been sought for to treat Gopal Mallick and Gopal Chandra Dutta as the same person and therefore, the original prayer made in the plaint is different to that of the prayer made in the amendment sought for and as such it is the settled position of law that when the nature and character of the suit would be changed, the amendment is not to be allowed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also after going through the pleadings made and the finding recorded in the impugned order, the settled position of law so far as Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned which contains a provision for amending the plaint or written statement, as the case may be, it can be at any stage of the suit. If any amendment has been sought for prior to framing of the issues, the only thing is to be seen is the nature and -4- character of the suit be not allowed to be changed but if the amendment having sought for after framing of the issues, the parties, either the plaintiff or the defendant, are required to show a due diligence for seeking leave of the court but in such circumstances also, the nature and character will not be allowed to change.
This Court, in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, has found that originally the prayer has been made by the petitioner for seeking a relief for a declaration to correct the name of the plaintiff and his father in the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, the respondent herein.
The amendment petition has been filed as would appear from Annexure-3, that the amendment has been sought for under paragraph 5(C) of the amendment petition seeking relief to make addition in the prayer after Para 16 as Para 16 Sub-para (a) - "For a decree against a defendants and in favour of the plaintiff declaring that GOPAL MALLICK and GOPAL CHANDRA DUTTA is the same person i.e. the plaintiff and SHANKAR MALLICK and SURENDRA NATH DUTTA is the same person that is the father of the plaintiff and these two names of the plaintiff and his father mention in the educational certificates of the plaintiff be declare that both names above mentions are the plaintiff, and his father".
It does suggest that in the original matriculation certificate the name has been reflected as of Gopal Mallick but the petitioner is claiming to be Gopal Chandra Dutta. The said fact led the petitioner to file a suit for getting declaration for change of the name in the matriculation certificate from Gopal Mallick to that of Gopal Chandra Dutta.
But in the amendment, the prayer has been made to treat Gopal Mallick -5- and Gopal Chandra Dutta as the same person.
There is material difference in between the prayer made in the plaint and the amendment as sought for and referred under paragraph 5(C) of the petition under Order VI Rule 17, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. As because in the plaint declaration has been sought for that the correct name of the plaintiff is Gopal Chandra Dutta but now in the amendment petition declaration has been sought for to treat Gopal Chandra Dutta similar to that of Gopal Mallick, therefore, both are in conflict with each other and hence, if the amendment would be allowed, the nature and character of the suit will alter.
In view thereof and taking into consideration the position of law that the nature and character of suit cannot be allowed to be changed, the trial court, after considering the aforesaid position of law, has rejected the amendment petition as has been impugned in this writ petition.
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the finding recorded by the trial court basis upon which the impugned order has been passed, does not warrant any interference under the supervisory jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/