Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1244 (PAT)

Umesh Singh v. Paras Rajak

2014-12-16

V.NATH

body2014
V. Nath, J. – Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in T.S. No. 09 of 2002 have assailed the order dated 06.02.2012/07.02.2012 passed by the court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for amendment in the plaint. 3. The necessitous facts are that the plaintiff-petitioners have filed the T.S. No. 09 of 2002 for eviction of the defendants. The defendants filed their written statement and claimed their title over the suit property on the basis of the homestead Parcha granted to them under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947. In view of the aforesaid stand of the defendants, the plaintiffs prayed for amendment in the plaint under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for adding the relief for declaring the homestead Parcha of the defendants as forged and fabricated and for addition of the State of Bihar as party in the suit. By order dated 12.05.2003, the learned court below turned down the prayer of the plaintiffs for amendment, as prayed. Thereafter, it appears from the impugned order that the suit proceeded as eviction suit and the evidence have been led by the parties and the matter was posted for argument on 16.05.2008. It further transpires from the impugned order that the arguments started and then 13 adjournments had been taken by the plaintiffs for placing their arguments. It has further been noticed by the learned court below in the impugned order that the argument of the defendants was complete by 14.11.2011 and the argument of the plaintiffs started on 15.11.2011 and then the plaintiffs preferred the amendment petition. 4. By seeking the amendment, the plaintiffs have prayed to add the relief for declaration of title over the suit property after declaring the homestead Parcha in question as forged and fabricated. The amendment petition has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and earlier orders, the court below has refused the prayer for amendment and posted the suit for argument by the plaintiffs. 5. After carefully considering the submissions on behalf of the parties and the facts and circumstances, it is limpid that the main basis of the claim of the defendants is the homestead parcha in their favour. 5. After carefully considering the submissions on behalf of the parties and the facts and circumstances, it is limpid that the main basis of the claim of the defendants is the homestead parcha in their favour. It is apparent that the plaintiffs had got the knowledge of the said Homestead Parcha in the year 2003 itself and had prayed for amendment in the plaint for declaring the said parcha to be forged and fabricated. The said prayer was rejected on 12.05.2003. The said order has admittedly attained finality as the plaintiffs did not challenge the same and rather chose to proceed with the suit with unamended plaint. Now after the closure of the evidence in the year 2008 and the completion of the arguments by the defendants, the plaintiffs after taking several adjournments came out with the amendment petition reiterating the addition of the facts and the same relief with regard to the homestead parcha. In this fact situation, it is obvious that the amendment which has been sought for is not bonafide and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. In the ultimate eventuate, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.