IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2008
Bhuneshwar Singh & another ..... ..... Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Prasad & ors. ..... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
------
For the Petitioners : M/s Mithilesh Kumar & S. Kumar, Advs.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
------
9/ Dated: 25th April 2011
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners (original
plaintiff’s) against an order passed by Sub Judge-II, Giridih dated 6th October 2007
in Title Suit No. 16 of 1993, whereby, an amendment application preferred by the
present petitioners (original plaintiffs) has been rejected.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the both sides and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly, on
the following facts and reasons:-
(i) The present petitioners are the original plaintiff’s. Petitioner no. 1 is
the original plaintiff no. 1, who is a Guard of the Overseas Bank
situated at district- Giridih and petitioner no. 2 the is original plaintiff
no. 2, who is the Cashier in the said Bank.
(ii) It appears that respondent no. 1 published a news item on 21st April
1993 in a daily Hindi newspaper, namely, “Hindustan” from Patna
under the heading “Asamajik Tatwo Ne Nind Haram Kar Rakhi Hai”.
The petitioners (original plaintiff’s) are not named in the news item.
General news was published under the general heading and
unnecessarily the plaintiff’s are thinking that their prestige is ruined by
the respondents-newspaper. This a wrong notion in the mind of the
original plaintiff’s. It appears that there is no basis at all of the suit to
be filed. Other Guard, Clerk, Head Clerk, General Manager etc. of the
said Bank are not the parties in the suit. I am failed to understand that
what has prompted the present petitioners to file this suit. This
hopeless litigation instituted by the present petitioners, deserves to be
dismissed forthwith with some exemplary cost.
(iii) It appears that unnecessarily an amendment application was also
preferred in the plaint. Rightly, it has been rejected by the learned trial
court. There is no substance in the amendment application preferred
by the present petitioners in the plaint.
3. In view of the aforesaid, I hereby dismiss this writ petition with cost of Rs.
2500/-, which will be deposited by the present petitioners before the trial court
within a period of fifteen days from today, otherwise, it will be recovered by the
Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of
this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
4. This writ petition is, hereby, dismissed with the aforesaid cost.
( D. N. Patel, J.)
R.Kr.