Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Sri Ram Govind Bhagat - Appellant
Versus
Nasim Akhtar - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2499 of 2019
Decided On : 12-09-2019
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [Order VI Rule 17, Section 151]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/defendant contested a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of right, title, and confirmation of possession over a specific land. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to rectify the boundary mentioned in the sale deed, which was initially rejected but later allowed. The petitioner challenged the order allowing the amendment petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature and character of the suit would not be changed by allowing the amendment, and there would not be proper adjudication of the issues if the amendment was not allowed. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allowance of the amendment petition, the change in the nature and character of the suit, and the potential prejudice to the defendant/petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature and character of the suit should not be changed after the commencement of the trial, but allowed for amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure proper adjudication of the issues. The court also highlighted the importance of giving the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the factual aspects at the appropriate stage.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.11.2017 passed in Title Suit No.198 of 2013 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) V, Dhanbad has been assailed whereby and whereunder petition dated 05.12.2016 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that a suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of his right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land along with decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as per Schedule-A to the plaint i.e. the land situated in Mouza Tilakraidih, Mouza no.169, Khata no.08, Plot no.267 out of total area 38 decimals,30 decimals purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed no.9065 dated 21.12.2012 from rightful owner which is butted and bounded as under:
North : Plot no.2401
South : Plot no.1251
East : Plot no.265
West : Plot no.266 & 1251
The petitioner has appeared on being called upon and filed written statement contesting the suit. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition on 13.05.2014 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C for amendment of the plaint to get the boundary mentioned in the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff especially in the northern boundary of the suit land by substituting other Plot no.267 and 250 instead of Plot no.240 as mentioned in the boundary shown in the sale deed dated 21.12.2012 but the said amendment petition has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2014.
The plaintiff thereafter has got the sale deed rectified by way of rectification dated 25.08.2014 whereby and whereunder the northern boundary of the suit land has been modified to the effect:
North :Plot no.250
South : Plot no.125
East : Plot no.265
West : Plot no.266 & 125
The said rectification deed has been issued by the competent authority by modifying the earlier deed wherein the reference of Plot no.240 has been typed as 2401, Plot no.125 has been typed as 1251 and according to the plaintiff the original sale deed there is reference of Plot no.125 but the line
"Purn Viram" has been treated by the plaintiff and therefore, in place of 240 and 125 it has been typed as 2401 and 1251 which has been rectified in pursuance to the rectification deed and thereafter another amendment petition has been filed on 07.02.2015 which has not been pressed and again third petition has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 dated 05.12.2016 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Praveen Akhouri, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the issue in assailing the order dated 18.11.2017 by submitting that prior to the petition dated 05.12.2016 two earlier petitions have been filed one was dismissed while the second was dismissed as not pressed and as such the third petition ought not to have been entertained by the trial Court, further by allowing the aforesaid amendment petition, the cause of action of the suit will entirely be changed and hence the trial court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter but not considered and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded therein, has gathered therefrom that the petition dated 05.12.2016 is third in series filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking amendment of the plaint. The objection has been raised by the petitioner that third petition ought not to have been entertained, therefore, this question is to be answered first.
It is evident from the Order VI Rule 17 that there is no bar in filing but the subsequent petition under Order VI Rule 17 for amending the pleading made either in the plaint
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
