← Library
Patna High CourtC.Misc./416/2018dismissed

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav And ORS v. Pyare Devi And ORS

2022-07-27Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.416 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Ors 2.

Rabindra Yadav 3.

Bhola Yadav All three are sons of Parmeshwar Yadav 4.

Ramratan Yadav son of Lal Bihari Yadav 5.

Balindra Yadav son of Ramratan Yadav 6.

Muni Devi alias Lalti Devi wife of Late Billu Yadav All are residents of Village - Naga Bigha, P.O. P.S. - Aurangabad, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Pyare Devi and Ors wife of Kamdeo Yadav Resident of Village - Dihawa, P.O. - Khaira Manjhauli, P.S. - Kasma, District - Aurangabad. 2.

Batasia Devi wife of Janeshwar Yadav 3.

Keshwar Yadav 4.

Lalan Yadav 5.

Gopal Yadav 6.

Subedar Yadav 3 to 6 are sons of Ramrenia Devi All 2 to 6 are residents of Village - Chandauli, P.O. - Shihuli, P.S. Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of amendment the plaintiff- respondents have added some plots in the suit for partition filed by them which do not belong to the joint family. Learned counsel submits that while allowing the amendment filed by the plaintiff-respondents the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the objection filed by the petitioners.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.416 of 2018(2) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the amendment sought and the objection filed thereto by the petitioners. It appears that the learned trial court allowed the amendment sought by the plaintiff-respondents before the commencement of the trial, as such, no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners inasmuch as they will not be prohibited to file additional written statement if so advised. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground requiring interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application stands rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U