Patna High CourtC.Misc./1086/2016dismissed

Bhardul Sah v. Mewalal Sah @ Mewa Lal

2016-11-23Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1086 of 2016 ====================================================== Bhardul Sah, S/o Late Krit Sah, resident of Pakari Ashok, P.S.- Piyara, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/Plaintiff

Versus

Mewalal Sah @ Mewa Lal, S/o Late Imrit Sah, resident of Pakari Ashok, P.S.- Piyara, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondent/Defendant ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 23-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 30.07.2016, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-XIII, Motihari, East Champaran in Partition Suit No. 178 of 2004, whereby the court below has allowed the amendment application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed and now the amendment application has been filed by the defendant praying for amendment in the written statement to the effect that unless the other joint family property mentioned in the amendment application are made the subject matter of the Partition Suit, the plaintiff's Partition Suit is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the impugned order. Perused the amendment application. It appears that the defendant is not praying for any relief regarding the property. His defence is only

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1086 of 2016 (3) dt.23-11-2016 that these properties which are the joint family property, if not made the subject matter of the Partition Suit, then the Partition Suit is liable to be dismissed.

In my opinion, therefore, this question which is being introduced by the defendant by way of amendment is pure question of law. The question is whether for partial partition the suit will be dismissed or not is to be decided. Since, the defendant is not praying for amendment of new facts, there is no question of prejudice to the petitioner arises.

Thus, this Civil Miscellaneous application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) P.K./- U