Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2651 (JHR)

Jitan Mahato v. Kishun Sao

2018-12-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.133 of 2000, is aggrieved of order dated 27.07.2017 by which his application for amendment has been rejected. 2. Title Suit No.133 of 2000 has been instituted for a decree for declaration that the plaintiff and the proforma defendant nos.8 to 14 have valid right, title, interest and possession over the schedule ''B'' land and for a decree for confirmation of their possession over schedule ''B'' land. 3. During the trial,the plaintiff filed an application on 07.05.2015 seeking amendment in the schedule ''B'' land by incorporating boundaries to schedule ''B'' which was allowed by order dated 22.07.2016. After the plaintiff''s evidence was closed and most of the defendants'' witnesses were examined; the learned counsel for the petitioner states that now the defendants'' evidence has been closed, the application dated 21.12.2016 seeking amendment in the schedule ''B'' was again filed. The trial judge observing that witnesses of both the sides have been examined in support of the rival claims and moreover once the application for amendment in the schedule ''B'' was permitted vide order dated 22.07.2016 a second amendment application cannot be entertained, dismissed the present application for amendment on 27.07.2017. 4. No doubt, the fundamental test when amendment in the pleadings can be permitted is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for adjudicating the real dispute involved in the suit, however, once the parties have committed themselves by taking a specific stand, through amendment they cannot be permitted to resile from their stand. The plaintiff, who has filed application for amendment in schedule ''B'' by incorporating boundaries to schedule ''B'', now cannot be permitted to file another application for amendment in the boundaries of schedule ''B'' after the parties have closed their evidence. 5. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.07.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.