Ram Janam Ram And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1201 of 2016 ====================================================== Ram Janam Ram & Anr .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam- Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 09-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. Perused the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge-VI, Kaimur at Bhabua in Title Appeal No.21 of 2012/27 of 2014 whereby the lower appellate court has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-respondent and allowed to amend the plaint seeking alternative remedy for recovery of possession of the suit property.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84 has held that the Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings. The Court while deciding the application for amendment must not refuse the bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendment. The first condition which must be satisfied
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1201 of 2016 (3) dt.09-12-2016 before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the Court's discretion.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivkumar (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 332 has held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
5. In the present case, the plaintiff is not praying for amendment in the facts pleaded in the plaint but on the basis of the same pleading only alternative prayer is sought to be added by way of amendment. Therefore, there is no question of prejudice to the petitioners arises.
6. From perusal of the order of the court below, it appears that the court below clearly recorded a finding that the amendment sought for is necessary for just decision of the controversies between the parties. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1201 of 2016 (3) dt.09-12-2016
7. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U