Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1184 (JHR)

Tabassum Ara v. Nafis Ahmad

2012-08-07

P.P.BHATT

body2012
JUDGMENT : The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the learned Sub- Judge, V, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 34 of 2008 (Annexure-4), whereby the application filed by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making certain amendment in the plaint and its rejoinder, dated 02.12.2010 has been rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. Perused the impugned order. 4. On perusal of the said order, it appears that the present petitioner has filed the suit under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, praying for a decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, as described in Schedule A and for Khas possession of the suit property. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the defendant in his written statement has stated that he is in possession of the entire ground floor and the suit filed, was in respect of the area, described in Schedule A i.e. one room ad measuring about 10'X10' with front Veranda ad measuring 5'X5' of a Pucca house premises situated in Holding No. 30A, Darji Line, Ramdas Batta, Bistipur, Jamshedpur. According to the petitioner, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff, was of a formal nature and in any way, not likely to cause any prejudice to the case of the defendant. However, the court below has not properly considered this aspect of the matter and reached to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is in respect of only one room and therefore, the amendment, which is sought for, is not the subject matter of the suit. It has no relevance at all and for that purpose, the plaintiff is required to file a separate proceeding under the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It has no relevance at all and for that purpose, the plaintiff is required to file a separate proceeding under the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. On perusal of the pleadings in the plaint and more particularly on perusal of the description given in the Schedule, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the learned court below appears to be just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court and the petition filed by the present petitioner deserves to be rejected as the court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the said order. The court below has passed the said order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the case. 6. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. 7. However, it is clarified that the observation made by the court below in the order dated 06.05.2011 with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of one room shall not cause any prejudice to the parties and the matter will be adjudicated upon and decided on the basis of the evidence on record considering the merits of the case.