Loading...

Rajeev Kumar vs The Civil Court,Gaya Through I on 23 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Rajeev Kumar vs The Civil Court,Gaya Through I on 23 August, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13222 of 2011
                                      Rajeev Kumar
                                          Versus
                           The Civil Court,Gaya Through I
                             ----------------------------------

3. 23.08.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Surendra

Kumar Singh on behalf of the petitioner.

This application has been filed by the

petitioner-petitioner against the order dated 18.6.2011

passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court

– III, Gaya in Probate Case No. 45 of 2009 whereby the

learned court below rejected the application filed by the

petitioner for amendment of the plaint by deleting two

words ‘separately’ occurring in paragraph 2 of the

probate application.

It appears that at paragraph 2 in 9th line and

11th line ‘separately’ word is occurring. According to the

learned senior counsel these two words ‘separately’ are

unwarranted and surplus and, therefore, prayer was

made for deleting the said words but the learned court

below refused to do so. According to the learned

counsel because of deletion of the said words the

nature of the proceeding will not change nor the case of

the petitioner will be changed.

It appears that this is a probate case and

because of deletion of the said words occurring in

paragraph 2 in 9th line and 11th line neither the nature

of the proceeding will be changed nor the case of the
petitioner will be changed and in my opinion it is only a

formal amendment. It further appears that the

petitioner is not seeking to withdraw any admission

made by him.

In such view of the matter this application

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is allowed

and the impugned order is set aside and the

amendment application filed by the petitioner is

allowed.

S.S.                                 (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)
 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information