Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 924 (PAT)

Sudarshan Singh v. Girija Devi W/o Ram Nath Singh

2009-07-14

RAVI RANJAN

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 2.8.2006, passed in Title Suit No. 8/2000 by the Munsif-ll, Bhojpur, Ara, whereby he had rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for allowing certain amendment in the plaint whereas one of the amendments was allowed. 3. The plaintiffs-petitioners by filing a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had made a prayer for amendment in paragraph 2 of the plaint to allow the name of Sonar Singh to be replaced by Sudarshan Singh, which was allowed by the court below. However, the second amendment proposed was to replace the year of death of one Rang Lal Singh, described in the plaint as 1982 with 1992. This amendment has not been allowed by the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid mistake is obviously a typographical one and, thus, the court below ought to have allowed the prayer. However, learned counsel for the opposite parties contends that it is a clear case of the plaintiffs in their plaint that the aforesaid Rang Lal Singh died in the year 1982 and during the course of examinations of PW-1, Janeshwar Singh, who is plaintiff no. 3, and PW- 2, Dhrub Singh, who is plaintiff no. 8, in paragraphs 3 & 8 of their respective depositions that they have admitted the fact that the aforesaid Rang Lal Singh died in the year 1982 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be a typographical error. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the admissions of the plaintiffs during the course of their examination as witnesses, the plaintiffs-petitioners cannot be allowed to make subsequent amendment in the plaint with the purpose to nullify the aforesaid admissions. 5. The court below on due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties has come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed in the interest of justice as the same does not appear to be merely a typographical error and, thus, has rejected the prayer. 6. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 2.8.2006. 7. 6. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 2.8.2006. 7. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed.