Anjali Devi v. Most. Madhuri Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.71 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

Anjali Devi W/o Late Jagdish Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 2.

Pammi Kumari Daughter of Late Jagdish Singh Resident of villagePachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 3.

Monu Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 4.

Sonu Singh @ Sonu Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Singh Resident of villagePachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 5.

Pammi Kumari Daughter of Late Jagdish Singh Resident of villagePachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 6.

Monu KUmar Son of Late Jagdish Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Most. Madhuri Devi W/o Late Jagdish Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda and at present resident of village- Nanand, P.o.- Nanand, P.s.- Silao, District- Nalanda 2.

Dharmshila Devi W/o Mahendra Prasad Resident of village- Neemganj, P.o.- Biharsharif, P.s.-Biharsharif, District- Nalanda 3.

Bipin Kumar Son of Late Doman Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 4.

Ranjeet Kumar S/o Late Rambriksh Singh Resident of village- Pachasa, P.o.- Mora Talab, P.s.- Rahui, District- Nalanda 5.

Ramji Prasad Son of Dharo Mahto Resident of village- Nagma, P.o.- Tiuri, P.s.- Manpur, District- Nalanda 6.

Madan Prasad Son of Dharo Mahto Resident of village- Nagma, P.o.- Tiuri, P.s.- Manpur, District- Nalanda 7.

Smt. Sannu Kumari Shrivastava W/o Navin Kumar Shrivastava Resident of village- Rau Bangra, P.s.- Ziradei, District- Siwan, at present of MohallaKamruddinganj, P.o.- Biharsharif, P.s.- Laheri, District- Nalanda ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For Res. No. 1 :

Mr. Subhen Sarkar For Res. No. 2 :

Mr. Surendra Kumar For Res. Nos. 3-7 :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha No. II Mr .Gajendra Nath Ojha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2021 dt.12-07-2022 2/3 Date : 12-07-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the part of the order, dated 22.12.2020, passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Title Suit No. 80 of 2008, by which the amendment of the plaint sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs has been rejected.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the respondent no. 1 has sold some of the suit land in favour of six purchasers, who have been added as party-defendants in the suit at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs.

4. The suit is of the year 2008 and the purchasers, at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, were made parties in the suit in the year 2011 and 2013. The argument on behalf of the respondents-defendants has, now, closed and the argument on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs is going on. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the amendment petition, seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that "since that suit property was sold during the pendency of he suit, as such, the same is barred by the doctrine enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882". The learned Court below while rejecting the amendment application has observed that the Court will consider

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2021 dt.12-07-2022 3/3 this legal question of lis pendens at the time of final disposal of the suit.

5. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the amendment sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs. The learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order.

6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. There shall be no order to costs.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12-07-2022 Transmission Date N/A