Laxman Sah v. Sharda Devi And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4205 of 2013 ====================================================== Laxman Sah Son Of Jagdish Sah Resident Of Village- Hardah Bazar, P.S. K. Hat Maranga, District Purnia .... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Sharda Devi Wife Of Late Rameshwar Prasad Swarnkar Resident Of Village- Hardah Bazar, P.S. K. Hat Maranga, District Purnia
2. Neera Devi Wife Of Bamb Shankar Swarnkar Resident Of VillageHardah Bazar, P.S. K. Hat Maranga, District Purnia
3. Ganga Sah Son Of Late Jagdish Sah Resident Of Village- Hardah Bazar, P.S. K. Hat Maranga, District Purnia .... .... Respondents.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT 09-02-2016 Heard Mr.Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Calling in question the legal sustainability of the impugned order allowing the amendment of the plaint as prayed by the plaintiff, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in the suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the plaintiff filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter and when the defendant filed the written statement contesting the prayer of the plaintiff, the present amendment has been filed whereby the earlier relief for grant of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4205 of 2013 (4) dt.09-02-2016 injunction has been sought to be deleted and substituted by the relief for declaration of title as well as the relief regarding possession. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that the amendments as sought by the plaintiff is by way of overhauling the entire plaint and replacing it with a new plaint. The learned counsel has also submitted that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. the prayer for amendment cannot be granted and the court below has committed illegality as well as error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. After perusal of the impugned order and consideration of the submissions, it is manifest that the suit was initially filed by the plaintiff for the relief of grant of injunction alone.
Subsequently the amendments have been sought whereby the relief for declaration of title as well as the relief with regard to possession have been sought to be added and further also some more facts have been sought to be added in the plaint. From the ordersheet (Annexure-6) it is apparent that the evidence in the suit has not yet started and the direction has been issued by the learned court below to the plaintiff to furnish witness list and adduce evidence. This fact has not been controverted on behalf of the petitioner during submission.
The purpose of amendment of pleadings as
Patna High Court CWJC No.4205 of 2013 (4) dt.09-02-2016 envisaged under the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is primarily to facilitate the adjudication of all disputes arising between the parties effectively and finally. Though, the proviso has been added by amendment but the stage of applicability of the proviso arises only after the trial has begun. In the present case, it is apparent that the trial has not begun in the sense that none of the parties have led any evidence till the filing of the amendment petition. The fact also cannot be ignored that in a suit for grant of permanent injunction, the issue of title is necessarily involved albeit incidentally. Learned court below has considered all the aspects elaborately and after allowing the prayer for amendment has also granted the opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement besides also granting cost. In this backdrop, this Court does not find that the learned court below has committed any illegality or error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
The present application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U