Patna High Court - Orders
Bimal Devi vs Tapeshwar Kumar & Ors on 4 September, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court CWJC No.13180 of 2010 (3) dt.04-09-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13180 of 2010
======================================================
1. Bimal Devi W/O Sri Prabhash Chnadra Das resident of village Gora
Mansingh, P.S.- Jamalpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Tapeshwar Kumar S/O Sri Baidyanath Sah R/O Mohalla- Rai Saheb
Tank Navtolia, Balbhadrapur, Ward No.36, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Anchal
Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
Plaintiff-respondent no.1
2. Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary S/O Suraj Narayan Chaudhary resident of
village Makhanpur, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, Distt.- Darbhanga
Defendant 2nd party/ respondent
3. Om Prakash Jha S/O Shushil Jha resident of village Kabilpur, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
Defendant 3rd party/ respondent
4. Smt. Lalita Chaudhary W/O Sri Ram Chandra Chaudhary resident of
village Sohri Lagna, P.S.- Manigachhi, Anchal- Manigachhi, Distt.-
Darbhanga, At Present Mohalla- R.S. Tank Navtolia, P.S.- Bahadurpur,
Distt.- Darbhanga
Defendant 4th party/ respondent
5. Amlesh Jha S/O Late Satrughan Jha resident of village Kabilpur, Ward
No.36, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Anchal Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
6. Sat Prakash Jha S/O Late Satrughan Jha resident of village Kabilpur,
Ward No.36, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Anchal Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
Defendant 5th party/ respondents
7. Smt. Binod Devi W/O Umesh Nand Pathak R/O Vill.- Baheri Deorhi,
P.S. & Anchal- Baheri, Distt.- Darbhanga
Defendant 6th party/ respondent
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-09-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself without issuance of notice to respondents.
Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 04.05.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge VI, Darbhanga in Title suit no. 101/2005 by which he allowed the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section Patna High Court CWJC No.13180 of 2010 (3) dt.04-09-2014 2 151 of the CPC on behalf of the respondent no.1 who is plaintiff in the above stated title suit no. 101/2005.
The sole contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no whisper in the amendment petition that respondent no.1 had no knowledge about the fact which he had sought to be amended but in spite of that learned Sub Judge allowed the petition which is against the principle as laid down by the Apex Court of this country in the case of Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs Usman Habib Dhuka & ors reported in 2013 (2) PLJR SC 356 in which it has been held by the Apex Court of this country that if amendment is sought on belated stage and if it is found that the aforesaid amendment is after-thought, the court must reject the amendment petition.
In the present case by filing amendment petition before the court below respondent no.1 sought some amendments in the plaint such as correction of name of one Ravi Chandra Mukherji as Hari Chandra Mukherji from whom one Narain Ojhain derived title of the suit land and thereafter, transferred in favour of other person from whom respondent no.1 exchanged his land and similarly, some other pleadings were also sought to be amended in different paragraphs of the plaint.
Learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that if the proposed amendments are allowed, nature of the suit would not be changed and on the aforesaid premises, he allowed the amendment petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above stated amendment petition was filed on belated stage and learned Sub Judge committed error in holding that if the proposed amendments are allowed, nature of the suit would not be changed but, as a matter of fact, in plaint, Patna High Court CWJC No.13180 of 2010 (3) dt.04-09-2014 3 respondent no.1 pleaded that Narain Ojhain derived title from one Ravi Chandra Mukherji and now, he wants to introduce name of Hari Chandra Mukherji and the aforesaid fact clearly demonstrates that if the above stated amendment is allowed, entire nature of the suit would be changed.
I am not at all convinced with the above stated submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner because mere change of name of person from which Narain Ojhain derived title does not change nature of the suit because case of the plaintiff is still the same that he exchanged disputed land from the persons who derived their title from their vendors. Furthermore, I find that it is the stand of respondent no.1 that due to typing mistake name of Hari Chandra Mukherji was wrongly typed as Ravi Chandra Mukherji.
So far as stage of the case is concerned, learned Sub Judge has, specifically, mentioned that hearing of the suit had not commenced at the time of passing of the impugned order.
Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself.
However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise her plea regarding title of transferor of respondent no.1 at appropriate stage and this order shall not prejudice to the mind of the learned trial court, if the above stated point is raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Shahid/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) U