Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Kalyani Goel Alias Smt Kalyani Goel vs Manu Ram And Ors on 4 January, 2016

                                               1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI                           
                                    W.P.(C) No. 5608 of 2013
                                               ­­­­­­­
                    Kalyani Goel @ Smt. Kalyani Goel, wife of Krishna Mohan, resident 
                    of Chatti Bazar, Gola Road, Ramgarh Cantt, PO/PS Ramgarh, Dist. 
                    Hazaribagh now Ramgarh
                                                                             ...Petitioner
                                               Versus
                    Manu Ram & Ors.                                ...      Respondent

                               ­­­­­­­
         CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                                ­­­­­­            
            For the Petitioner                : None
            For the Respondent                : None    
                               ­­­­­­­ 

04/04.01.2016

  Vide   order   dated   16.06.2015,   the   writ   petition   was  dismissed in default.  The counsel for the petitioner remained absent  on previous occasions when the writ petition was dismissed by this  Court.     Subsequently,   the   application   for   restoration   of   the   writ  petition   vide   C.M.P. No.  204  of   2015   was allowed  on   27.11.2015.  Today on second call also, counsel for the petitioner is absent.  

2. Aggrieved by order dated 11.06.2013 in Title Suit No. 15  of 2005 whereby, the application seeking amendment in the written  statement has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 

3. It   appears   that   after   the   parties   closed   their   evidence,  application   under   Order   VI   Rule   17   C.P.C.   was   filed   by   the  petitioner/defendant seeking incorporation of the following facts:

"I.  After the paragraph No. 17 of written statement, a   new para 17A be added as­ II.     That   Janki   Sao,   the   grand   father   in­law   of   defendant­Smt.   Kalyani   Goel   had   been   living   in   Ramgarh   since   before   1919   and   used   to   deal   his   business there living in the suit house.   Janki Sao had   no   other   house   to   live   in   house   at   Ramgarh.     Thus   remaining in the suit house Janki Sao got Hukumnama   from   the   Ex­landlord   Amul   Ratan   Goswami   S/o   Jatil   2 Chandra   Goswami   in   the   year   1920.     Since,   Jatil   Chandra   Goswami   was   old   sick   person   and   seriously   suffering   from   various   ailment   in   1920   and   used   to   remain   on   bed.     In   such   situation   Jatil   Chandra   Goswami was then not able to do any Jamindari work.   Jatil   Chandra   Goswami   had   two   sons   namely,   Amul   Ratan Goswami and Bhutnath Goswami.   Amul Ratan   Goswami was adult in the year 1920 and his younger   brother   Bhutnath   Goswami   was   minor,   so   all   the   Zamindari, work in Ramgarh was dealt and performed   by Amul Ratan Goswami. That is why the Hukumnama   was   given   to   Janki   Sao   for   the   suit   land   by   the   Ex­landlord   Amul   Ratan   Goswami   in   the   year   1920.   Janki   Sao   living   peacefully   over   the   suit   land   and   exercising various act of possession thereon had executed   Registered deed of Mortgage a some partition of the suit   land to one Shyam Jee Amba Ram of Ramgarh on dated   08.03.1940." 

4. From the aforesaid proposed amendment it is apparent  that an entirely new plea has been sought to be incorporated by the  defendants   in   the   written   statement.     In   application   dated  01.07.2011 the petitioner has asserted that during course of evidence  she could know about certain old documents which would narrate  the   history   and   the   possession   of   the   ancestors   of   the   defendant.  About   7   years   after   the   title   suit   was   instituted   and   the   parties  adduced   evidence   in   the   suit,   to   fill   up   lacuna   in   the   case,  amendment in the written statement cannot be permitted.  

 5.  I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is  dismissed.               

                      

  (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)      Amit/N.A.F.R.