Harihar Rai @ Harihar Singh v. Nathu Sah

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.618 of 2016 (3) dt.25-10-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.618 of 2016 ====================================================== Harihar Rai @ Harihar Singh .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Nathu Sah .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Kant For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 25-10-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Chandra Kant, appearing for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the Additional Munsif- 6th, Siwan in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2001, whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner praying for converting the eviction suit to a regular title suit.

3.

It appears that in spite of valid service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant-respondent. 4.

It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid eviction suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent on the ground of default and personal necessity. The defendant appeared and filed contesting written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed title on himself. Thereafter witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and also application was filed by the plaintiff praying for conversion of the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.618 of 2016 (3) dt.25-10-2016 eviction suit to a regular title suit. The court below rejected the amendment application on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit i.e. from eviction suit to a regular title suit.

5.

In this matter reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Balaram Medical Hall Vs. Rajendra Prasad reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 778. This Court, in the aforesaid case, has held at paragraph-32 that an eviction suit can be permitted to be converted into a title suit so that all matters in controversy between all concerned parties may be settled once and for all.

6.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has not considered the settled principle of law as referred to above and has rejected the application only on technical ground that it will change the nature of the suit. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by the court below is contrary to settled principle of law. As such, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is allowed. The impugned order is, hereby, set aside and the amendment application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint i.e for converting the eviction suit to a title suit is hereby allowed. Brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U