Jagat Narayan Singh And ORS v. Saryug Singh And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7972 of 2012 ===========================================================
1. Jagat Narayan Singh Son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, resident of village Gopalpur, P.O.-Partapur, P.S.-Karja, District-Muzaffarpur (power of attorney holder of the Sheela Devi Shail Kumari Devi, Anekful Devi and Lal Muni Devi, Daughter of Late Kamal Singh, resident of village-Salaahpur, P.O.-Deoriya Kothi, P.S. Deoriya, District-Muzaffarpur
2. Raghwendra Kumar Singh
3. Braj Bhushan Kumar Both S/o late Sheela Devi .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Saryug Singh Son of late Chengan Singh
2. Dhananjay Singh Son of late Ram Nath Singh
3. Mritunjay Singh Son of late Ram Nath Singh
4. Anil Kumar Singh Son of Saryug Singh
5. Avinash Singh Son of Saryug Singh
6. Vikash Kumar Singh Son of Saryug Singh All are resident of village- Salaahpur, P.O. Deoriya Kothi, P.S. Deoriya, Sub- Division and Munsiff- Muzaffarpur, West Champaran, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-10-2018 Petitioners are plaintiffs in Partition Suit No. 450 of 2004 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-V, Muzaffarpur. They have filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 17.03.2012 whereby and whereunder their petition for amendment of plaint was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the record.
3. The petitioners filed the aforesaid partition suit
2/4 claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property mentioned in schedule-I of the plaint. In course of trial, both the parties examined their witnesses and when the case was pending for argument, the petitioners filed an amendment petition which after hearing was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the suit was filed by Jagat Narayan Singh (petitioner no. 1) on the basis of power of attorney executed by the four daughters of late Kamal Singh. On the petition of petitioners, the daughters of Kamal Singh were added as co-plaintiffs and they were permitted to sign the plaint.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the defendant Dhananjay Singh filed his written statement on 27.01.2005 and at para 13, 14 and 15 of his written statement he has specifically asserted that one of the co-sharer Suryadeo Singh had executed deed of gift in his favour on 25.07.1984 with respect to 6 acre 84 dismal land described in schedule-A of the written statement and since then he is possession over the same. Besides the aforesaid deed of gift, the said Suryadeo Singh had executed another deed of gift in favour of the defendant no. 4.
6. On the basis of pleadings of both parties the learned court below framed issue. Both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence and after closing the evidence of both the
3/4 parties, the plaintiffs filed an amendment petition to add some fact with respect to the said registered deeds of gift which were executed in the year 1984 by Suryadeo Singh. The learned court below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioners observed that the amendment petition was filed after long delay and if allowed, it will change the nature of the suit. The plaintiffs-petitioners in spite of full knowledge about the deed of gift which stands pleaded in para 13, 14 and 15 of the written statement of defendant no. 2 did not file amendment at the earliest stage of trial and allowed the suit to proceed. After closing the evidence of both sides when the case was fixed for argument he filed the petition. The court below in such circumstance has rightly rejected the amendments so far amendment at serial nos. 6 and 7 of amendment petition are concerned as by the said amendment the plaintiff wants to deny the right, title and interest of defendants which they acquired on the basis of registered deed of gift.
7. So far amendments mentioned at serial nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the amendment petition are concerned, these amendments appear formal in nature and it will not change the nature of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that they would not examine any witness in support of amended pleading.
8. In view of above discussions the impugned order is partially set aside and amendment with respect to amendment
4/4 mentioned at para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 to 11 of amendment petition stands allowed.
9. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar, J) Mahesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date13/10/2018 Transmission Date N/A