Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 473 (JHR)

Juha Bala Devi v. Babuchand Mahto

2013-04-09

P.P.BHATT

body2013
ORDER Petitioners by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order for quashing and setting aside an order dated 14.9.2012, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Title Appeal No.11 of 2010 (Annexure-5), whereby the application for amendment in the plaint made on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent. Perused the interim order as well as other materials placed on record. 3. It appears that the Title Suit No.30 of 2001 was decided by judgment and order dated 30.10.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioners preferred Title Appeal No.11 of 2010 and, in the said title suit an amendment was sought for by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. 4. Learned court below has recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at length, and thereby, rejected the said application by assigning reason that the said application was filed at a belated stage and, it seeks interim development after the institution of case, which may alter the nature and character of the suit. 5. It appears that the property in question was purchased by the petitioners-plaintiff during the pendency of the said suit and, therefore, there was ample opportunity available to the plaintiffs to move such amendment application during the pendency of the suit. But the petitioners-plaintiffs are not in a position to show any satisfactory justification/reason for not moving the requisite application for amendment during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, in this context the provision contained in Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C is required to be seen, which is reproduced herein below:- “17. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings a ow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and a such amendments sha be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings a ow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and a such amendments sha be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Where, however, an application for amendment is made by the plainti in a suit in which the defendant has not appeared, though served with a summons, and where in the opinion of the Court the amendment applied for is a material one, the Court sha give notice of the application to the defendant before a owing the amendment; and where in the absence of the defendant the Court grants any amendment in a form materia y di erent from that of which notice has been given to the defendant, a copy of the amended plaint sha be served on the defendant.” 6. In view of the above provision, it appears that the court below has rightly and properly passed the order and thereby rejected the application of the petitioners for amendment in the plaint, which was filed at a belated stage and there is no justification given by the petitioners-plaintiffs, as to why and under what circumstances the amendment in question which was well within his knowledge, could not be moved during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the petition for amendment filed by the petitioners deserves to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.