Judgment · High Court

Judgment

#1. 2. 3. Samiul Hasan Khan Amirul Hasan Khan Jamshed Khan All sons of late Ahmad Khan Shamsul Hoda Khan son of late Mohammad Yasin Khan, all resident of Mauza Matiyari, P.S.Vijaypur, District

#4. Gopalganj. ..Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Nayeemuddin Khan son of late Abdul Rahman Khan Nasimuddin Ahmad Khan son of late Nizamuddin Khan Merajuddin Khan son of Nayeemuddin Khan Serajuddin Khan son of Nayeemuddin Khan Fariuddin Khan Wajiuddin Khan Saifuddin Khan Yasir Khan All opposite party nos.9 to 12 are sons of late Wasiuddin Khan Bibi Hafizunnisa wife of late Nizamuddin Khan Bibi Qamrunnisa wife of late Wasiuddin Khan All opposite parties no.5 to 14 are resident of village Matiyari, P.S.Vijaypur, District Gopalganj Wasim Khan Maqsood Khan Both sons of late Amanutullah Khan, resident of village Walepur, P.S. Khukhundu, District Dewariya in the State of Utter Pradesh, at present resident of village Matiyari, P.S. Vijaypur, District Gopalganj. Tahira Khatoon Ujra Khatoon Shiba Khatoon All three are daughters of late Wasiuddin Khan, resident of village Matiyari, P.S. Vijaypur, District Gopalganj Jibair Khan Ekram Khan Both sons of Abdullah Khan Resident of village Walepur, P.S.Khukhundu, District Devariya in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Nasrullah Khan Azimullah Khan Both sons of late Zahir Khan, resident of village Walepur, P.S. Khukhundu, District Dewariya in the State of Uttar Pradesh at present resident of Matiyari, P.S. Vijaypur, District Gopalganj.

#13. 14.

#15. 16.

#17. 18. 19.

#20. 21.

#22. 23.

…….Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 2

#24. Madaras Shamsul Hoda Board, Patna through Chairman, Madarsa Board, Patna. …….Defendant 3rd party-opposite party 3rd set. For the petitioner : M/s Najeeb Ahmad and Md. Sufiyan, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. 02/

16.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. -----------

#2. This petition has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 13.02.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Gopalganj allowed the application filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set for amendment of their plaint in Title Suit No. 604 of 2005.

#3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of their shares in the suit properties and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who filed their written statement.

#4. It is an admitted fact that hearing of the suit has not yet commenced, neither issues have been framed by the learned court below and in the meantime an application for amendment of the plaint has been filed by the plaintiffs, which was been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.02.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order claiming that by the said amendment the entire nature of the suit as well as the reliefs claimed in the suit are sought to be changed. It is further stated that there are two other 3 suits, which are pending with respect to the same properties between the parties and an application under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 filed by the defendants is pending in the learned court below. Hence, he states that in the said circumstances the amendments sought by the plaintiffs should have been refused.

#6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the learned court below has passed the said order after considering the matter in issue and only thereafter it has allowed the amendment application of the plaintiffs. In any view of the matter, the law in this regard is well-settled that it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party as after all amendments of pleadings would not amount to decision on the issues involved, rather they would only serve advance notice to the otherside as to the plea which a party might take up at the time of final hearing of the suit.

#7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to amend his written statement or file an additional written statement with regard to the amendments sought in the plaint and all those matters would be considered by the learned court below at the time of final hearing 4 of the suit on the basis of the evidence and provisions of law.

#8. It appears from the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some interlocutory applications pending in the learned court below, in which no order has been passed since long. The learned court below is directed to dispose of such interlocutory applications expeditiously without any undue delay in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)