Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 501 (JHR)

Onkar Nath Prasad v. Mamta Devi

2017-03-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – I.A. No. 3010/2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents. 2. Learned Sub Judge, Ranchi in Succession Case No. 56/2010 refused the prayer of the opposite party / petitioner herein to incorporate the amendments at para-7 of his show-cause in the following terms: "After the death of Jitendra Nath Prasad the account being No. 908029 of G.P.O., Ranchi was converted into single account by the Asst. Post Master, G.P.O., Ranchi on 9.8.2009 and thereafter the same was solely operated by this opposite party over which the claimants have got no concern whatsoever." 3. Respondent No. 1 herein, widow of Jitendra Nath Prasad, has instituted a succession case before the Learned Court for issuance of certificate in respect of debt and security enumerated at para-14 of her application. Item no. 4 is in respect of monthly income scheme of G.P.O., Ranchi being half share out of Rs. 2.00 lakh in the account no. 902029. The opposite party / petitioner herein, brother of the deceased, in his show-cause at para-7 made the following statements. "7. That the statement made in para-7 of the said petition is fully denied by this Opp. Party. The Opp. Party most humbly states and submits that admittedly this Opp. Party was the Joint account holder with the deceased Jitendra Nath Prasad, that too with respect to item No. IV of the Schedule of the said petition. It is necessary to mention here that the said account was to be operated by ''either of survives'' and this Opp. Party being the survivor, after the death of Jitendra Nath Prasad operated the said account. The petitioners have got no concern with the said account and they are not entitled for any amount from the said account (Item No. IV of the schedule). This Opp. Party being the surviver is only entitled for the amounts of the said account." 4. This has been denied by the Learned Court on the ground of lack of due diligence on the part of the opposite party / petitioner herein, as the conversion of G.P.O. account into single account was made on 09.08.2009 itself after the death of Jitendra Nath Prasad on 05.02.2009, a fact well known to the opposite party. The evidence of the petitioner therein had already been closed also at the time when such amendment was moved. The evidence of the petitioner therein had already been closed also at the time when such amendment was moved. Such an amendment has been sought at a belated stage. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that account was held in jointness by the petitioner with his brother Jitendra Nath Prasad since 2004 on ''either of survivors'' basis. After the death of one of the joint account holder, the account had to be logically converted into single account which fact, inadvertently, could not be incorporated in the show-cause filed, though it has relevance and material bearing on the outcome of the case. The amendment has been brought well within time and would assist the Learned Court in determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Therefore, the impugned order deserves interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that amendment has been proposed at a belated stage. The account was converted into single account as early as on 09.08.2009 in the knowledge of the opposite party / petitioner herein. After the evidence of the applicant has been closed, he has sought the proposed amendment with the tendency to linger the adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, interference may be declined. 7. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material facts on record including the impugned order. Amendments which are proposed by the opposite party / petitioner herein, appear to be intrinsically linked with the averments made at para-7 of his show-cause and has a material bearing, insofar as determining the real question in controversy between the parties is concerned. Though, the proposed amendments have been made after some delay, but taking a overall perspective of things, it appears that the Learned Court was not right in refusing the same. The proposed amendments would rather assist the Court for reaching to the root of the matter. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside. Amendments are allowed, however subject to the cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid to the applicants / Respondents 1 to 3 herein, to be deposited in the Court below. Let succession case be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. 3,000/- to be paid to the applicants / Respondents 1 to 3 herein, to be deposited in the Court below. Let succession case be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Interim order stands vacated. 9. I.A. stands closed.