Patna High Court
Shyam Babu Singh & Ors vs Sri Narayan Pandit on 13 September, 2018
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.786 of 2017
======================================================
1. Shyam Babu Singh, Son of Late Sitaram Singh, Resident of
Mohalla-Naya Gaon Chaili Tal, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna.
2. Ajit Kumar @ nepali Son of Late Ram Babu Singh,
3. Rekha Devi, Wife of Manoj Kumar,
4. Rakesh Kumar, Son of Late Ram Babu Singh,
5. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Ram Babu Singh
6. Most. Meena Devi, Wife of Late Ram Babu Singh, Petitioner
nos. 2 to 6 Residents of Village/Mohalla-Udrahmpur, P.S.-
Mehandiganj, Patna Ciry, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sri Narayan Pandit Son of Late Prabhu Pandit, Resident of Mohalla-
Murtujiganj, P.S.-Mehandiganj, Patna City, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-09-2018
Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the defendants. The plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration of title over the suit land mentioned in the
Schedule of the plaint by virtue of a Ulfi deed. During the
pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed petition for amendment of
the plaint and sought insertion of certain plots in the Schedule of
the plaint. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Judge-III,
Patna City allowed the petition of amendment.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.786 of 2017 dt.13-09-2018
2/2
3. Being aggireved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners
filed this civil miscellaneous petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the plaintiff by filing amendment petition inserted new plots and
the property and sought declaration of title by virtue of the sale
deed executed in the year 1937. The learned Sub-Judge without
giving any reason allowed the amendment petition. Of course it
appears that the learned Sub-Judge has not assigned any reason in
the order impugned but even by a cryptic order, the amendment
petition is allowed. In the suit the petitioenrs-defendants have filed
WS but the issues have not yet been settled. Before settlement of
issues, the plaintiff filed petition for amendment of the plaint,
therefore, I find no jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated
17.12.2016, passed in Title Suit No.112 of 2000 by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City.
5. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.09.2018 Transmission Date NA