Ram Awatar Rai And ORS v. Bharat Prasad Yadav And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8335 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Ram Awatar Rai son of Bhola Rai resident of village Mali, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran
2. Ramesh Yadav
3. Jawahir Yadav
4. Birendra Yadav
5. Manager Yadav
6. Dinesh Yadav All sons of Late Shiv Balak Rai
7. Most. Maina Kuer wife of Late Shiv Balak Rai All resident of village Mali, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioners.
Versus
1. Bharat Prasad Yadav son of Gagandeo Yadav
2. Champara Devi wife of Bharat Prasad Yadav
3. Jitendra Prasad Yadav
4. Radhey Shyam Prasad Yadav Both Sons of Bharat Prasad Yadav All resident of village Mali, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran
5. Pitambar Sahani
6. Anil Sahani Both sons of Hari Sahani Resident of village Gauri Ganga, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran
7. Harendra Prasad son of Kamal Prasad
8. Awadh Kishore Lal
9. Braj Bihari Lal Both sons of Late Mangal Lal Resident of village Sripur, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran
10. Hari Mohan Prasad Yadav son of Bharat Prasad Yadav All resident of village Mali, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran.... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT 29-02-2016 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Assailing the impugned order by which the petition for amendment in the plaint has been rejected, the plaintiff-petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8335 of 2014 (2) dt.29-02-2016 It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed in the year 2000 with the relief for declaration of title over the suit land. At the stage of argument the petition dated 10.03.2014 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendments including the amendment for addition of the relief for specific performance of contract. The learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances as well as the submissions on behalf of the parties, has turned down the amendments relating to the addition of the relief for specific performance of contract but allowed the amendments which are formal in nature.
After considering the submissions and from perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, it is transparent that the suit was earlier filed for declaration of title and it is only at the argument stage of the suit that the plaintiffpetitioners have prayed for amendment for adding the relief of specific performance of contract after deleting the earlier relief. It is obvious that the nature of the suit would completely change, if the proposed amendment in this regard is allowed. The learned court below has committed no error of jurisdiction or illegality in passing the impugned order, rejecting the prayer for amendments in this regard.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8335 of 2014 (2) dt.29-02-2016 The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U