Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
State Of Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
Ratni Jatia - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3636 of 2014
Decided On : 03-10-2018
Amendment - Suit Land Dispute - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - [Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344] - The court discussed the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and emphasized that the proposed amendment must be necessary for adjudicating the real dispute between the parties. The court held that the proposed amendments in the plaint were formal in nature and necessary for elaborating the initial pleadings, and thus set aside the impugned order rejecting the amendments.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Jharkhand filed an application for amendments in a suit land dispute. The trial judge rejected the application on the ground that the suit had been pending since 1991 and only two witnesses had been examined by 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendments were formal in nature and necessary for elaborating the initial pleadings. It held that the rejection of the amendments by the trial judge was a serious error in law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendments in the plaint were necessary for adjudicating the real dispute involved in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the proposed amendments must be necessary for adjudicating the real dispute between the parties and that the trial judge's rejection of the amendments was a serious error in law.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the amendments was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The proposed amendments were to be incorporated in the plaint, and the defendants were permitted to file an additional written statement.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner-State of Jharkhand is aggrieved of order dated 04.04.2014 passed in Title (D) Suit No.30 of 1991 by which its application for amendments in the plaint has been rejected.
2. Inspite of due service of notice upon them the respondents have not appeared in this writ proceeding. The petitioner-State of Jharkhand has filed affidavit dated 07.6.2017 on service of notice upon the respondents.
3. The litigation in respect of the suit lands has a chequered history. But before the previous proceedings are recorded, it is necessary to record few facts pleaded in Title (D) Suit No.30 of 1991. The plaintiff has pleaded that the suit schedule property popularly known as ''Rohini Estate'' was a Ghatwali property. The successor of a Ghatwal would inherit the estate, but only the life interest. By a registered lease-deed dated 11.11.1905 a piece of land referred to as "Hill View" was given on lease to Yogendra Nath Bose for 50 years from 1312 BC to 1361 BC, that is, till 1955 A.D. However, in a family settlement dated 08.08.1911 the suit land fell in share of Ekkarinath Bose who transferred the said land in favour of Onkarmall Jatia. The plaintiff has pleaded that the sale-deed in favour of the said Onkarmall Jatia contains a recital that the transfer was subject to the rights and obligations under the lease-deed. The defendants are legal heirs and successors of said Onkarmall Jatia.
Further case set-up by the plaintiff is that on expiry of the lease-deed the defendants did not make any application for renewal or extension of lease period either to the ''Rohini Estate'' or the State of Bihar, after the vesting in the State. It is pleaded that there was no verification in respect of the return submitted by the Ghatwal and the ex-landlord also did not submit a copy of the lease granted by the State, however, during search for a suitable land for Circuit House when it was found that the suit land is a lease-hold land and its period has already expired a notice was issued to the Chairman of Sri Onkarmall Jatia Trust and thereafter, Misc. Case No.01 of 1989-90 was instituted. By an order dated 08.12.1989 the Additional Collector, Deoghar held that the lease was valid uptill 1955 and thereafter possession of D.N. Jatia was illegal. Aggrieved by this order, D.N. Jatia came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.10301 of 1989. The writ petition was allowed by an order dated 04.04.1990. This order was challenged by the State of Bihar in S.L.P. (Civil) No.9785 of 1990, however, by that time a decision to institute a suit was already taken by the State government. The Special Leave Petition stood disposed of on 16.01.1991, but without prejudice to the right of the State to obtain possession of the land in question, in accordance with law.
In the pending suit after the plaintiff had examined two witnesses an application for amendments was filed. The amendment sought in paragraph nos.3, 4 and 11 of the plaint are relevant. These proposed amendments are contained in paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the application dated 03.10.2012, which read as under:
"4. That after end of para 3 the following sentence may be added, "The leasehold property the ''Hill-view'' belonging to Jogendra Nath Bose alone was illegally transferred firstly by way of an alleged family settlement dated 08.08.1911 in favour of Ekrari Nath Bose with oblique motive to facilitate its 2nd transaction by way of an illegal sale in favour of Onkar Mall Jetia in clear violation of the terms and conditions of Lease Deed. There being specific mandate in the Lease Deed the Lessee was/is/precluded from entering into any such transfer by any such mode. Accordingly, the alleged family settlement dated 08.08.1911 in favour of Ekrari Nath Bose followed with transfer of the same by way of Sale Deed being ipso-facto bad in law is illegal and invalid under all circumstances".
5. That in para 4 after the full stop as sub para the following may be added. "The lessee having be
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
