Patna High CourtC.Misc./1381/2018dismissed

Israil Ansari @ Md. Israil Ansari v. Upendra Kumar Singh And ORS

2022-09-22Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1381 of 2018 ====================================================== Israil Ansari @ Md. Israil Ansari Son of Late Eid Mohammad Ansari, Resident of Village P.O. Pakbalia, Police Station-Daraunda, District-Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Upendra Kumar Singh and Ors Son of BHarat Singh 2.

Santeshwar Mishra Son of Kamta MIshra, 3.

Mahboob Ansari 4.

Esrar Ahmad, Both Sons of Late Nezamuddin Ansari, Resident of Village P.O. Pakbalia, Police Station-Daraunda, District-Siwan. 5.

Akhtar Hussain 6.

Shamshad Ahmad Both Sons of Eid Mohammad Ansari, Both Resident of Village P.O.Pakbalia, Police Station-Daraunda, District-Siwan.. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abdul Mannan Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Heard Mr. Abdul Manan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.05.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 225 of 2015 whereby amendment in the plaint sought by the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that certain amendments which have been allowed would change the nature of the suit. In support of the same, he submits that somewhere the name has been changed 'Rajdhari' to 'Rajmari' and further 'Ramraji Singh' to 'Rajmari Rai'. He also

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1381 of 2018(2) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 submits that in para-8, changes have been made from Rs. 1 Lac to Rs. 4,81,000/-.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the amendment sought by the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has sought amendment in the plaint with regard to the name mentioned therein and amount which was mentioned in para-8 of the plaint from Rs. 1 Lac to Rs. 4,81,000/-. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it will change the nature of the suit.

The petitioner/defendant, if so advised, may file additional W.S. No prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. The same is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U