← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15348/2014dismissed

Lalan Prasad @ Lalan Prasad Sah v. Rajan Kumar

2018-03-12Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15348 of 2014 ====================================================== Lalan Prasad @ Lalan Prasad Sah S/o Late Kapldeo Sah Resident of Mohalla Baniyapatti Motihari Town, P.O. Motihari Town, P.S. Motihari Town, District East Champaran at Motihari.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

Rajan Kumar S/o Late Kamal Prasad Sah Resident of Village Areraj, P.O. Areraj, P.S. Govindganj, District East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-03-2018 The defendant of Title Suit No.316 of 2011 pending in the Court of Sub Judge-4, Motihari, has filed this application for setting aside the order dated 01.02.2014 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition filed by respondent/plaintiff was allowed,

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

3. On going through the impugned order, averment made in the plaint, written statement and amendment petition, I find that the plaintiff has amended his pleading made in para-8 of the plaint in order to clarify as to when his father and grand-father died. The plaintiff has deleted the word 'Baba' and in its place he has mentioned the word 'Father'. The grand-father of the plaintiff died in the year 1973. Thus, amendments appears to be simple in nature

Patna High Court CWJC No.15348 of 2014 (4) dt.12-03-2018 2/2 and these amendments do no change the nature of the suit.

4. Considering the amendment petition filed at belated stage the learned court below has imposed cost to the tune of Rs.1500/- with a liberty to the petitioner to file additional written statement and also to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. In view of above facts, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U