IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2467 of 2006
Sudhamay Dey ...... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sarla Bala Dasi & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Rohit Roy, Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
th
04/Dated: 25 April, 2011
1.
The present writ petition has been preferred against the order,
passed by the learned MunsifII, Dhanbad dated 23rd February, 2006 in
Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 whereby, the amendment application, preferred
by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) in plaint was not allowed and
therefore, this writ petition has been preferred by the original plaintiff.
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order,
passed by the learned MunsifII, Dhanbad dated 23rd February, 2006 in
Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) Petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has instituted Title
Suit No. 34 of 1999.
(ii) It appears that the present respondents, who are the original
defendants, have filed written statement at a much belated stage
i.e. in August, 2004 and thereafter, issues were framed on 11th
November, 2005 and thereafter, the amendment application was
preferred in the year 2005 by the original plaintiffs, which was
allowed with cost of Rs. 100/.
(iii) It appears that the amendment sought for in the paint is to
the effect that some plot numbers are to be added in the schedule
of the plaint, but, the total measurement of the suit land is the
same. Thus, because of error some plot numbers were left out to be
mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Similarly, corresponding
amendments have also been made in certain paragraphs of the
plaint mentioning few plots. This amendment application is at
Annexure3 to the memo of the present writ petition. Looking to
the nature of the amendments, it appears that it affects the very
root of the case if this amendment is not allowed at this stage. The
learned trial court may not arrived at correct conclusion of the
2.
dispute between the parties, without allowing amendment.
(iv) Looking to the stage of the Title Suit, it appears that the
evidence of plaintiff’s side witness is going on. Thus, no prejudice is
going to be caused to the original defendants. Moreover, looking to
the nature of amendment, it cannot be said that nature of suit will
be changed.
3. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby,
quash and set aside the order, passed by the learned trial court and allow
the amendment application, preferred by the original plaintiffs, which is
at Annexure3 to the memo of the present writ petition with a cost of
Rs. 2,500/ (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only), which will be
deposited by the original plaintiffs within fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a copy of an order of this Court and upon proper application
the same shall be withdrawn by the original defendants. The original
defendants are also permitted to file their further additional written
statement, if they so desire.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
VK/