Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Ram Chandra Sah – Appellant
Versus
Akhilesh Prasad Yadav – Respondent
Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The present civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 7th of July, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No. 55 of 2013/136 of 2014, by which the learned Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra, rejected the petition dated 05.07.2017 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents/petitioners under Section 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) wherein a prayer was made to pass a decree with respect to recovery of possession as well.
2. The conspectus of fact as it appears from the record is that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed Title Suit No. 395 of 2008 against the defendants/respondents seeking declaration that plaintiffs were having title over the suit land as mentioned in Schedule-Ka of the plaint and also for declaration that saledeed dated 9th of June, 2008 executed by the defendant no. 5 in favour of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in respect of Schedule-Kha land was illegal, without consideration, inoperative and was executed by a person having no title over the said land. It further appe
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 152 – Correction in decree – An unintentional mistake of court which may prejudice cause of any party, must be rectified – If unintentional mistakes could be rect....
Civil courts have the inherent power to correct clerical errors and mistakes arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders, including those traceable to the pleadings of....
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority; amendments to pleadings must be sought in good faith and with due diligence.
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
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
