Shiv Pujan Rai v. Shila Rai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9532 of 2016 ====================================================== Shiv Pujan Rai S/o Late Baribansh Rai, Resident of Village Barka Nuwab, P.S. District-Buxar at present residing in Town Block Road Nai Bazar, Keshri Nandan Nagar, New ward No. 4 P.S. District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Shila Rai W/o Ashok Rai, Resident of village-Khairbari, P.S. Bhawarcol, District-Gajipur (U.P.) .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 01-08-2016 Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It appears that partition Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter amendment application has been filed by the plaintiff for inclusion of some more joint family property. The defendant-petitioner filed objection to the said application alleging that those properties sought to be included are the self acquired property of the petitioner. Court below by the impugned order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Buxar has held that this question can be decided only after the evidences of the parties and the same shall be decided at the time of the final adjudication of the case. So far as the question as to whether the property is
Patna High Court CWJC No.9532 of 2016 (2) dt.01-08-2016 2/2 self acquired property or it belonged to the joint family property and the plaintiff has a share in the suit property is a matter relating to merit of the amendment application.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008(17) Supreme Court Cases 671 has held the merit of the amendment application can not be looked into at the time of consideration regarding whether the application for amendment is to be allowed or not. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned court below has rightly rejected the amendment application and there by no prejudice is caused to the present petitioner as his evidence is yet to start.
In the result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Misc. Application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) siddharth/- U