Mohammad Serazuddin Ansari And ORS v. Shakila Bano And ANR

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1260 of 2016 (2) dt.07-12-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1260 of 2016 ====================================================== Mohammad Serazuddin Ansari & Ors .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Shakila Bano & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay for the petitioners.

Perused the impugned order dated 11.12.2015 passed by Sub Judge V, Bhabhua in Title Suit No.540 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It appears that Title Suit No.540 of 2009 was filed by only plaintiff, Shakila Bano for declaration of title. In the suit, the ancestor of the petitioner was defendant No.1. They filed supporting written statement. The defendant No.2 filed contesting written statement. After filing the written statement by defendant No.2, the sole plaintiff filed application for amendment alleging that because of some statement made in the written statement of defendant No.2, amendment is necessitated. The Court below by the impugned order has rejected the amendment application filed

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1260 of 2016 (2) dt.07-12-2016 by the plaintiff.

This Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed by the heirs of defendant No.1 who are the supporting defendants. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he has got grievance against the defendant No.2 and, therefore, when the plaintiff did not challenge the order rejecting the amendment application, the supporting defendants are filing this Civil Miscellaneous case.

It may be mentioned here that the application was filed by the sole plaintiff. The pleading is her pleading i.e. the sole plaintiff pleading. If amendment is rejected, the aggrieved person will be the plaintiff only. The supporting defendants have got their separate pleading i.e. the supporting written statement. When the plaintiff is aggrieved person it cannot be said that the supporting defendants are also aggrieved person and, therefore, at their instance, this Civil Miscellaneous application is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T