High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Yogendra Singh @ Ghora Singh &Amp; vs Chitralekha Devi on 10 July, 2008

Patna High Court – Orders
Yogendra Singh @ Ghora Singh &Amp; vs Chitralekha Devi on 10 July, 2008
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           C.R. No.73 of 2007
                     YOGENDRA SINGH @ GHORA SINGH & ANR.
                                 Versus
                            CHITRALEKHA DEVI
                              -----------

4 10/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners.

Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated

22.12.2006 refusing amendment in the written

statement.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that whatever amendment were proposed in the

written statement as detailed in the Schedule-A

application seeking amendment were formal in

nature and in any event did not change nature of

the suit which still remained out and out a

partition suit. In this context, he has submitted

that either measurement of the land by Bigha,

Katha or Dhur, or the description of dimensions

thereof can never change nature of the suit. He

further submits that for this amendment which were

formal in nature, no further evidence is required

and therefore approach of the court below in

rejecting the application for amendment was wholly

vitiated in law, both by material irregularity as

also an error of jurisdiction.

There being no opposition to such

submission of the counsel for the petitioners, in

as much as, the sole opposite party, the

plaintiff, even after service of notice has not

chosen to appear, this Court finds merit in the

aforesaid submission of counsel for the

petitioners. The court below in fact has curiously

come to a finding that on account of change of
2

measurement of land and/or description thereof,

nature of suit would change. The impugned order is

obviously vitiated by error of jurisdiction and as

such cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the

impugned order is set aside.

It is, however, made clear, as has been

rightly conceded by the counsel for the

petitioner, that after effecting amendments no

further evidence will be required and the court

can proceed to conclude hearing and deliver

judgment. This Court would accordingly direct the

court below to incorporate the amendment in

written statement and proceed ahead in accordance

with law.

In the result this application is allowed

with the aforementioned observations and

directions.

( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)

Abhay Kumar