IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.724 of 2008
Goutam Tiwari son of Late Shiv Prasaad Tiwari, resident
of Village Baldiha, Pargana - Goa, Police Station
Amnour, District Saran.... Plaintiff/Petitioner
Versus
1. Shashi Bhushan Mahto
2. Ravi Bhushan Mahto
Both sons of late Asharfi Mahto
3. Poonam Devi
4. Sima Devi
5. Malti Devi
All daughters of late Asharfi Mahto
6. Roop Jharia Kwer wife of late Indrashan Mahto
7. Uma Shankar Mahto son of Late Indrashan Mahto
8. Sushila Devi daughter of late Indirashan Mahto
9. Jhari Devi daughter of late Indrashan Mahto
10. Awadhesh Tiwari
11. Lalji Tiwari
12. Gopal Ji Tiwari
All sons of late Raja Ram Tiwari
13. Urmali Devi
14. Sunaina Devi
15. Sushila Devi
All daughters of late Raja Ram Tiwari
.... Defendants 1st Party
16. Rabindra Tiwari son of late Dhanikh Tiwari
.... Defendant 2nd party
17. Daya Nand Tiwari son of Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari
.... Defendant 3rd party
18. Nagnarayan Tiwari son of late Shiv Prasaad Tiwari
...... Plaintiff
All residents of village Baldiha, Pargana -Goa, Police
Station Amnour,District Saran
..... Opposite Parties
-----------
03- 21/10/2011 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sinha for the petitioner. The
plaintiff is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated
18.2.2008, passed by the learned Munsif III, Chapra, in Title Suit
No.34/94, whereby the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the
plaint has been rejected. The plaintiff prayed in the amendment
application to incorporate certain Pendente Lite developments in the
2
plaint, namely, the defendants have destroyed some of the items which
has caused loss to the tune of Rs.8000/- to the plaintiff.
2. We have perused the materials on record and
considered the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff
(petitioner herein). It appears that the plaintiff had earlier filed
identical application for amendment of pleadings on 5.12.2005, which
was not pressed for a long time, and was ultimately rejected by order
dated 16.7.2007. In the meantime, the suit progressed, the plaintiff
examined his witnesses and closed his evidence. The plaintiff
thereafter repeated the same application at a stage when the
defendants were about to commence their evidence. In such a
situation, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly
rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. It is obviously a
delaying tactics coupled with gross negligence attributable to the
plaintiff.
3. This civil revision application is rejected.
mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )