Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11301 of 2011 ====================================================== Ramjee Rai, S/o Thali Rai, R/o Lohara Mahua Tola, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, P.O.- Badlu Tola, Distt.- Saran .... Plaintiff No. 1.... Petitioner Versus 1. Mishri Rai, S/o Late Ram Das Rai 2. Rameshwar Rai 3. Sitaram Rai 4. Dasai Rai 5. Shivjee Rai 6. Chotan Rai Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are sons of Mishri Rai, R/o Mauze Lohara, Mahua Tola, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, P.O. Badlu Tola, Distt.- Saran. ..Defendant 1st party…Respondent 1st Party 7. (a) Ranjeet Kumar (b) Ram Lakhan Kumar Sons of late Krishna Rai, R/o Lohara, Mahua Tola, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, P.O. Badlu Tola, Distt.- Saran
Legal Reasoning
Plaintiff No. 2…Respondent 2nd Party 8. The State of Bihar 9. The Collector, Saran, Chapra 10. The D.C.L.R. Saran, Chapra
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent 3rd Party…Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma Mr. Anjani Kumar For the Respondent No. 1 to 6 None For the Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Abindh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 8 26-06-2013 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It seems that notices were issued by this Court for service upon respondents and were duly served and respondents No. 1 to 5 entered appearance by way of Vakalatnama through their counsel. On call, however, there is no representation on behalf of the Patna High Court CWJC No.11301 of 2011 (8) dt.26-06-2013 2/5 respondents. Yesterday also on call, no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.02.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 4 of 2006 by learned Additional Munsif, 14, Chapra, whereby he has rejected the petition under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint. 4. It has been alleged that the said amendment was primarily based on a subsequent event to the effect that during the pendency of suit, on 23.02.2006 and 24.02.2006, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the Court below, were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants from the suit property. 5. In view of such subsequent event, the petitioners sought for amendment of relief in the plaint. In the plaint they had sought for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction but by way of amendment, the petitioner / plaintiff wanted to amend the relief seeking recovery of possession in view of subsequent event. The petitioner / plaintiff also sought for amending the pleadings of the plaint by introducing such facts relating to his forceful dispossession from the suit land on 23.02.2006 / 24.02.2006 by the respondents / defendants. 6. Apart from the amendment based on dispossession of the plaintiffs / petitioners, they also sought for further amendment to Patna High Court CWJC No.11301 of 2011 (8) dt.26-06-2013 3/5 bring on record State of Bihar and its officials, namely, Collector, Saran, Chapra, Additional Collector-cum-D.C.L.R., Saran, Chapra, The Sub-divisional Officer, Saran, Chapra, and Circle Officer, (Sadar) Chapra, as defendants since the Parcha issued by the State of Bihar was also under challenge in the suit. As indicated above, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents nor any reply to the petition has been filed by them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order submits that the learned Court below wrongly held that the amendment sought if allowed, would have changed the nature of the suit as the proposed amendment was based on a subsequent event and the suit was a title suit for declaration of title over the suit land. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could have been said that proposed amendment if introduced, would have changed the nature of the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 SC 3369 (Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu & Anr.) to contend that the proposed amendment based on subsequent event in the facts and circumstances of the case would not alter the basic structure of the suit and the amendment sought was wrongly disallowed by the court below. Patna High Court CWJC No.11301 of 2011 (8) dt.26-06-2013 4/5 9. After having perused the impugned order dated 05.02.2011, I am of the view that the same is a cryptic order and does not show any application of mind. The pleadings in the present application have not been denied by the other side. Thus, this is not in dispute that the amendment sought for, was based primarily on the alleged event of dispossession of the petitioner from the suit land on 22.02.2006 / 24.02.2006. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission while placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu & Anr. that in such circumstances, the nature of the suit would not have altered, had the proposed amendment been allowed. Paragraph-7 of the judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial Court it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiff's revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings.” 11. In case of Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu & Anr. (supra) also the similar relief was sought under Order VI Rule 17 Patna High Court CWJC No.11301 of 2011 (8) dt.26-06-2013 5/5 on the basis that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. On such averment, the plaintiff had sought for declaration of title over the suit property and consequential relief of delivery of possession. Supreme Court allowed the amendment to be made by incorporating the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment in the plaint. So far as amendment relating to impleadment of State Respondents and its officials as quoted above, it appears that the same has not even been considered by the Court below in its impugned order. I am also of the view that since Parcha issued by the State of Bihar is under challenge in the suit, the State of Bihar and its officials respondents as quoted above are necessary parties to be brought on record. 12. For reason aforesaid, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.02.2011 is set aside. The amendment petition dated 04.09.2010 is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendments sought for in the said application dated 04.09.2010.
Decision
13. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Saif/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)