Ganesh Singh v. Dinanath Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.603 of 2016 ====================================================== Ganesh Singh .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Dinanath Singh .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 08-08-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad, for the petitioner.

By the impugned order dated 4.2.2016, the learned Sub Judge XIV, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No.85 of 1995 has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that repeatedly several applications are being filed by the plaintiff respondent as a result of which the petitioner's evidence has not yet started and the learned Court below by the impugned order has allowed the amendment application without recording any finding regarding the due diligence of the plaintiff respondent as required under Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

The suit is of the year 1995. Admittedly, the evidence of

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.603 of 2016 (2) dt.08-08-2016 2/2 this petitioner has not yet started. From perusal of the amendment application, it appears that the amendment application was filed for making correction in the plaint regarding name, plot number, khata number etc. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the suit is of the year 1995, therefore, Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC will not apply in the present case, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly allowed the amendment application.

Thus, this Civil Misc. application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U T