Patna High Court - Orders
Satish Chandra Thakur & Ors vs Brahmdeo Gupta & Ors on 29 March, 2012
Author: Sheema Ali Khan
Bench: Sheema Ali Khan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.287 of 2011
======================================================
1. Satish Chandra Thakur Late Raghunandan Thakur @ Raghubar Thakur
Resident of Ward No. 3, Town, P.S. & District Supaul.
2. Ram Ratan Thakur Late Raghunandan Thakur @ Raghubar Thakur
Resident Of Ward No. 3, Town, P.S. & District Supaul.
3. Sita Ram Thakur @ Saheb Thakur Late Raghunandan Thakur @
Raghubar Thakur Resident of Ward No. 3, Town, P.S. & District Supaul.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Brahmdeo Gupta Late Parmeshwar Mistry Residents of Ward No. 1,
Town, P.S. & District Supaul
2. Ramdeo Gupta Late Parmeshwar Mistry Residents of Ward No. 1, Town,
P.S. & District Supaul
3. Munni Devi W/O Late Basudeo Gupta Residents of Ward No. 1, Town,
P.S. & District Supaul
4. Bablu Gupta Late Basudeo Gupta Residents of Ward No. 1, Town, P.S. &
District Supaul
5. Sonu Gupta Late Basudeo Gupta Residents of Ward No. 1, Town, P.S. &
District Supaul
6. Manju Devi D/O Late Basudeo Gupta Residents of Ward No. 1, Town,
P.S. & District Supaul
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. U. S. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORAL ORDER
3 29-03-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This writ application has been filed to challenge the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Munsif, Sapaul in Title Suit No. 9 of 2000. The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the court below had filed amendment petition praying therein that they may be permitted to make certain addition one Kha-1 in paragraph-1 of Patna High Court CWJC No.287 of 2011 (3) dt.29-03-2012 2/3 the plaint. The amendment sought is that the name of Fulo Devi, mother of defendants in the Khatiyan, should be expunged and name of the mother of plaintiffs be substituted in the Khatiyan.
The suit filed is for declaration of right, title and recovery of possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had already made assertion that Khatiyan was wrongly prepared in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint and, therefore, it is only a formal addition.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the assertion made in paragraph-1 should not be allowed on the ground that the trial has commenced and about five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that amendment petition does not mention as to when the Khatiyan was prepared and is incomplete. It is further contended that the petitioners had known about the fact that the name of defendants' mother was entered in the Khatiyan, and as also the said amendment has been filed after great delay.
Considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and the respondents, this Court finds that the amendment sought by the petitioners is of formal nature, repeating in essence what has already been stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint and, as Patna High Court CWJC No.287 of 2011 (3) dt.29-03-2012 3/3 such, this Court finds no reason to deny the amendment. It goes without saying that the defendants would be entitled to file reply/additional written statement/to amend his written statement in reply to the amendment petition.
Accordingly this writ application is disposed of with the above direction.
RPS/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)