Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 179 (JHR)

Inam Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-17

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 02.03.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the application filed by respondent no.2-plaintiff in the suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC dated 28.07.2016 has been allowed. Petitioners-defendants aggrieved with the same have filed the instant writ petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts of this case is that the respondent no.2-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and during pendency of the suit, certain developments having taken place, amendment was sought for adding sub-paragraph in paragraph no.18 of the plaint to the effect that the Appellate Authority D.C.L.R., Jamshedpur by order dated 8.3.2016 allowed the said Appeal No.07 of 2014-15 and cancelled the mutation, order of the defendant No.1 and also directed the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur to deleted the name of the defendant no. 1 from the register and submitted his report through his letter No. 891 dated 22.03.2016 to the Appellate Authority D.C.L.R., Jamshedpur. 3. Apart from that, certain other things have also been sought for to be added in the plaint, as would be evident from the copy of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17, which is at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The trial court after taking into consideration the nature of amendment and also considering the stage of the trial, since the issue has not been framed, has allowed the application, against which this writ petition has been filed. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court while allowing the application has not appreciated the fact that by allowing the amendment, as sought for, the notice of the suit will be challenged and that is the basic principle for not entertaining the application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., if there is any likelihood of change in the nature of the suit. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, since the suit has been filed for recovery of possession and the order passed by the Revenue Authority in mutation case is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, since the same has occurred during course of pendency of the suit before the trial court and therefore, for proper adjudication the said document is necessary to be examined by the trial court. He further submits that the issue has not been framed and therefore in no way the petitioners-defendants are going to be prejudiced, because they can take all the points even by filing additional written statement and by cross-examining the plaintiff, at an appropriate stage. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, it has been stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore the supervisory jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised. 6. Mr. Samim Akhtar, learned counsel for the State, who is present before this Court, submits that the State is a formal party. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the materials available on record that the respondent no.2-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession being Title Suit No.95 of 2015. While the suit was pending, subsequent development has taken place i.e. the Revenue Authority has passed an order and for bringing on record the order passed in the Mutation Case wherein the mutation created in favour of defendant no.1 has been cancelled by the appellate authority and therefore, it appears that the matter pertains to recovery of possession and the cancellation of mutation also pertains to the land in question. 8. Further it is evident that although the summons have been issued and written statement has been filed by the defendants in the suit but issues have not been framed and, therefore the trial court after taking into consideration the document which has been sought to be brought on record by way of amendment, and the reason which occurred during pendency of the suit, has allowed the amendment application. 9. 9. In the considered view of this Court the scope of Order VI Rule 17 is that the amendment if found to be necessary by the trial court for proper adjudication of the issue and in no way the nature of the suit is going to be changed and if the party to the suit is not going to be prejudiced, the application is to be allowed for proper adjudication of the issue in order to proper adjudication and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceeding. 10. In view thereof, the trial after considering the fact that the issues have not been framed and therefore allowed the aforesaid application and hence there is no any infirmity since the petitioners will not be prejudiced and they will have an opportunity to rebut the fact sought to be amended at the proper stage. 11. In view thereof, there is no reason to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its revisable jurisdiction and therefore this writ petition lacks merit, which is, accordingly, dismissed.