Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 560 (PAT)

Narsingh Rai v. Durgawati Devi

2005-06-27

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 151/1990 which was filed by them for partition of their shares in the suit property and also for declaration that the deeds executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 41 to 41 (Gaa) dated 14.8.1995, 12.8.1996, 25.5.1995, 3.2.1997 and 29.5.1997 were void, ab-initio and also that the sale deed dated 22.2.1995 executed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 41 was forged and for injunction etc. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6.3.2002 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge IX, Gopalganj, rejected their petition for amendment of the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were two mistakes in the plaint regarding dates only as in Paragraph-14 (Gaa) the date of the deed was mentioned as 8.8.1996, although, it should have been 12.8.1996. He further submits that in relief No. (i) the date of deed is wrongly mentioned at one place as 29.5.1995, although, it should have been 29.5.1997. He further submits that these mistakes are merely typographical errors and do not change the nature of the suit and hence the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that in the earlier amendment petition (Annexure-1) the plaintiffs had given the dates of the deeds as 12.8.1996 and 29.5.1995. He further submits that in the earlier order of this Court also the date of deed is mentioned as 29.5.1995. Hence, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to amend the said date to 29.5.1997 which has no concern with the date 29.5.1995. He further submits that he has already filed an FIR bearing Phulwaris PS Case No. 45/1998 on 8.10.1998 against some of the plaintiffs including the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under various Sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 420 IPC for committing interpolation in deeds. He further submits that the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the suit is fixed for final argument. Hence, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. He further submits that the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the suit is fixed for final argument. Hence, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that this suit has no concern with the criminal case filed by the opposite parties which has to be considered and decided, according to its own merit. Furthermore, from the earlier order of this Court dated 16.8.2000 (Annexure-2) passed in Civil Revision No. 613/2000, it is quite apparent that in that order also 29.5.1997 was mentioned at three places, but they were corrected to 29.5.1995. Furthermore, it also transpires that there are two deeds, one dated 29.5.1995 and the other dated 29.5.1997. Hence, there is every chance of confusion and typographical errors which could not be detected earlier. 7. So far the amendment of the date 8.8.1996 to 12.8.1996 is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since all the documents and evidence have already been placed before the Court, he does not want to lead any further evidence either orally or documentary on these points. However, the defendants-opposite parties have already filed their additional written statement and if the learned Court below permits them to lead evidence on those pleadings, then the plaintiffs-petitioners should also be given a chance of rebuttal. Furthermore, the petitioner as well as the opposite parties will be at liberty to take all the points taken before this Court at the time of final argument of the case. 8. With the said directions, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to permit the plaintiffs-petitioners to amend their plaint accordingly.