Rabindra Prasad v. Ramrati Devi And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18395 of 2012 ====================================================== RABINDRA PRASAD SON OF LATE YADUNANDAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MEGHI, P.O. MEGHI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTRICT NALANDA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA KHANDAKPUR, YADUNANDAN MARKET, P.O. AND P.S. BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA.
.... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
1. RAMRATI DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE SAUDAGAR MAHTO @ SAUDAGAR SINGH, WIFE OF YUGESHWAR PRASAD
2. BHUSHAN RAM @ BHUSHAN PRASAD
3. DHIRAJ KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE YUGESHWAR PRASAD ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHARI BIGHA, P.O. LAL BIGHA, P.S. SHAHPUR (KASHICHAK) DISTRICT NAWADA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MEGHI, P.O. MEGHI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTRICT NALANDA.
4. ONKAR PRASAD
5. MAHENDRA PRASAD BOTH SONS OF LATE RABINDRA PRASAD
6. CHANDAN KUMAR SON OF RABINDRA PRASAD
7. VICKY KUMAR SON OF ONKAR PRASAD
8. BABLU KUMAR MINOR SON OF ONKAR PRASAD, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER AND WELL WISHER ONKAR PRASAD
9. TUKU
10. CHHOTU BOTH MINOR SON OF MAHENDRA PRASAD UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER AND WELL WISHER MAHENDRA PRASAD ALL (4) TO (10) ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MEGHI, P.O. MEGHI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTRICT NALANDA.
11. SHIV KUMAR
12. AWADH KISHORE
13. ASHOK KUMAR ALL SON OF LATE PRATAP MAHTO @ RAMDEO SINGH
14. MITHILESH KUMAR
15. MAHESH KUMAR
Patna High Court CWJC No.18395 of 2012 (6) dt.18-12-2015
16. MUKESH KUMAR ALL SONS OF LATE KULDIP NARAYAN PRASAD.
ALL (11) TO (16) ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MEGHI, P.O. MEGHI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTRICT NALANDA.
.... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Adv. M/s Maruti Kumari, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 18-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
Though additional W.S. contains the description with regard to earlier suit having fought amongst the family members bearing Title Suit No.12 of 1983 and further, from the pleading of the rival party it is apparent that deed of gift executed by Saudagar Mahto has come up for adjudication by way of an amendment in the plaint, however the disclosure made in the proposed amendment petition (Annexure-2) happens to be imagination or perception of petitioner/defendant formed under his own illusion whereupon cannot be a basis for amendment and consequent thereupon rightly been denied by the learned lower court.
Petition is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) PN/- U