Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
(12.7.2022)
Civil Misc. Jur. No.71 of 2021
Anjali Devi & Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
Most. Madhuri Devi & Ors. : Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Amendment of plaint – Petitioners have filed amendment petition, seeking amendment in plaint to the extent that since that suit property was sold during pendency of suit, as such, same is barred by doctrine enshrined under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Court below while rejecting amendment application has observed that Court will consider legal question of lis pendens at the time of final disposal of suit – Impugned order upheld – Application dismissed. (Paras 4 to 6)
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.:–Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the part of the order, dated 22.12.2020, passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Title Suit No. 80 of 2008, by which the amendment of the plaint sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs has been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the respondent no. 1 has sold some of the suit land in favour of six purchasers, who have been added as party-defendants in the suit at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs.
4. The suit is of the year 2008 and the purchasers, at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, were made parties in the suit in the year 2011 and 2013. The argument on behalf of the respondents-defendants has, now, closed and the argument on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs is going on. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the amendment petition, seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that “since that suit property was sold during the pendency of he suit, as such, the same is barred by the doctrine enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882”. The learned Court below while rejecting the amendment application has observed that the Court will consider this legal question of lis pendens at the time of final disposal of the suit.
5. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the amendment sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs. The learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order.
6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. There shall be no order to costs.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and its explanation, which clarified that....
Doctrine of lis pendens applies to property transfer when an ongoing suit specifically involves that property.
Amendment of plaint – When an amendment is allowed, said amendment should not unfairly prejudice other side – Normally when an amendment is allowed, it dates back to date of institution of suit.
The court's decision emphasized that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should not change the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action.
The doctrine of lis pendens requires precise identification of the property in question; misdescription of property at the time of filing a suit precludes its application.
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that reads as During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established bey....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
