Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 925 (JHR)

Anita Devi, w/o. Munna Sahu v. Raj Kishore Mahto

2024-11-14

SUBHASH CHAND

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Subhash Chand, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been directed against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed in MCA 12 of 2023 arising out of OS No.27 of 2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of right title and interest in properties in question which was registered as Original Suit No. 27 of 2019. In that suit the written statement was also filed by the defendant and issues were also framed. 4. The plaintiff has moved the application for amendment in the plaint by which the plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint in regard to title that his vendor had derived and in regard to the mutation cases which were filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed to get his name mutated in the revenue record and certain types of typographical mistakes were also to be rectified in regard to the year. The learned Court below has rejected the amendment application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is based on perverse finding. 5. The learned counsel for the Opposite party vehemently opposed the contentions of the petitioner and contended that by way of this amendment the plaintiff wants to incorporate in the plaint the evidence which cannot be permitted. So far as the amendment in regard to mutation cases are concerned, in revenue records the names of the defendants has already been recorded and for the same the amendment sought by the plaintiff is meaningless. 6. The copy of the plaint is at Annexure A of this petition. From the very perusal of the plaint it is found that plaintiff has averred that he has acquired the property in suit from Randha Kuer by way of two sale deeds dated 20.11.1999 and dated 16.02.2001 and accordingly the relief for declaration of right title is sought against the defendant showing the interference being made by them in property in question. 7. By way of this amendment application the plaintiff has sought to explain how his vendor Randha Kuer acquired the right title and interest in the property in suit. Further the plaintiff has also sought to incorporate in the plaint the mutation case which was filed by him on the basis of the sale deed . 7. By way of this amendment application the plaintiff has sought to explain how his vendor Randha Kuer acquired the right title and interest in the property in suit. Further the plaintiff has also sought to incorporate in the plaint the mutation case which was filed by him on the basis of the sale deed . Further the amendment is sought in regard to adding the name of witnesses of the sale deed which has already been mentioned in the sale deed itself and in the relief clause also the status in regard to the land in question as “Raiyati Kaimi right” has also been sought to be added. 7.1 The proposed amendment is of explanatory nature in regard to the pleadings which the plaintiff has taken in his plaint originally. From the proposed amendment neither the nature of the suit is changed nor any prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant. 7.2 In the original suit the Court below has framed the issues and the evidence has not commenced. The learned Court below has rejected the amendment application of the plaintiff on this ground that all these facts had already been pleaded in his pleadings and also on the ground of delay. 7.3 It is the settled law that the amendment application may be moved at any stage of the suit. Even the amendment application may be moved at the stage of appeal if the amendment sought is of requisite nature. 7.4 There is no delay in moving the amendment application at the suit is also in its initial stage. The evidence has also not been commenced admittedly. 7.5 So far as the facts which the defendant has averred in the written statement, this finding recorded by the Court below is not found tenable because by way of amendment the plaintiff has simply sought to explain the facts which were already in the plaint itself. The defendant may also rebut these amended pleadings by filing the additional written statement. 7.6 The impugned order passed by the learned Court below needs interference as such this civil miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed in MCA No. 12 of 2023 arising out of OS No. 27 of 2019 is set aside consequently the amendment application of the petitioner/plaintiff stands allowed. 7.6 The impugned order passed by the learned Court below needs interference as such this civil miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed in MCA No. 12 of 2023 arising out of OS No. 27 of 2019 is set aside consequently the amendment application of the petitioner/plaintiff stands allowed. 7.7 The learned Court below is directed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporate the amendment within one week after obtaining the copy of the order and the defendants may file additional written statement to controvert the amended pleadings of the plaintiff. 7.8 Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of.