Patna High CourtCWJC/11624/2012disposed

Sushila Devi v. Baijnath Mahto And ORS

2015-11-27Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.11624 of 2012 (7) dt.27-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11624 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Sushila Devi Wife Of Late Bishwanath Mahto, Daughter Of Late Saryug Mahto Resident Of Village And P.O. Kurhani, P.S. Kurhani, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Baijnath Mahto Son Of Bhajan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sadhopur, P.S. Vaishali District - Vaishali

2. Kailash Mahto Son Of Bhajan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sadhopur, P.S. Vaishali District - Vaishali

3. Laxmi Mahto Son Of Bhajan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sadhopur, P.S. Vaishali District - Vaishali

4. Ram Babu Mahto Son Of Bhajan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sadhopur, P.S. Vaishali District - Vaishali

5. Paro Devi W/O Sitaram Mahto Resident Of Village - Mahikpur, P.S. Saraiya District - Muzaffarpur

6. Shail Devi W/O Saku Mahto Reident Of Village - Satpura, Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali

7. Raj Kumari Devi W/O Shankar Mahto Resident Of Village - Kajiinda Maniyari, P.S. Maniyari, District - Muzaffarpur

8. Rita Devi W/O Satrughan Mahto Resident Of Village - Vishua Madhaul, P.S. Mahua, District - Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 27-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by an order dated 01.05.2012 whereby her prayer for amendment of the plaint dated 29.03.2012 has been rejected.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, on account of deficiency still persisting at her end regarding the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11624 of 2012 (7) dt.27-11-2015 disclosure made under para-'G' of proposed amendment dated 29.03.2012 did not want to press, keeping the same alive and the same is allowed. With regard to remaining, looks formal in nature and on account thereof, are fit to be allowed. Consequent thereupon, the order impugned is set aside. Petition is allowed.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U T