Kalawati Devi And ORS v. American Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12856 of 2015 ====================================================== Kalawati Devi & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

American Prasad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

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

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 30-09-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Chandra Kant for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh for the sole respondent.

2. Perused the impugned order dated 19.05.2015 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Siwan in Title Suit No.291 of 1998.

3. It appears that the suit is of the year 1998. The amendment application which is rejected by the court below by last part of the order is of the year 1998. In the year 2014 another amendment application was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. In the same order the court below allowed the amendment application of the year 2014 and rejected the amendment application filed in the year 1998 only on the ground that this application is very old application i.e. dated 15.09.1998. From perusal of the last part of the impugned order, it appears that no reason has been assigned. On the ground that the application is very old application, it cannot be rejected. In my opinion,

Patna High Court CWJC No.12856 of 2015 (4) dt.30-09-2016 therefore, the court below has rejected the application on untenable ground.

4. It is settled principles of law that the reasons should be reflected from the order as to why it is rejected particularly when the court has the jurisdiction to consider the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and while passing the order under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court is required to pass a judicial order and not arbitrary.

5. So far the application dated 23.09.2013 is concerned, it is submitted that this application is not an amendment application rather by this application the plaintiffs-petitioners prayed that the amendment application of the year 1998 be disposed of. This application has also been rejected. No reason has been assigned. In other words, it can very well be said that that part of the order is non-speaking order.

6. Thus, this writ application is allowed. The last part of the order rejecting both the applications as stated above is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the court concerned. The court concerned shall pass a fresh order as directed above after hearing the parties.

Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U