IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment in plaint can be allowed at any stage of suit even before pronouncement of Judgment – Question of requirement of filing written statement cannot be assessed by court at this stage.

JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 2103 of 2024

In this interlocutory application, leave has been sought for that opposite party No.1 has died and, as such, substitution petition has been sought to be filed in the court.

2. It requires to refer herein that the Opposite Party No.1, who has died for which the instant interlocutory application has been filed, is the wife and in her place her husband and son have been sought to be impleaded as the Opposite Parties.

C.M.P. No.915 of 2023 2

3. Considering the nature of prayer made in the said interlocutory application, the same is being taken on record.

4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Paty No.2, has submitted that the copy of the same has been received and he has sought no time to file response.

5. Considering the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, the substitution so sought to be made in the arrays of the party is hereby allowed.

6. I.A. No.2103 of 2024 stands allowed.

7. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the Opposite Party No.1 forthwith.

C.M.P. No.915 of 2023

8. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division-IX, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.93/2020 arising out of Original Suit No.193/2013 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for carrying out amendment in the plaint has been allowed has been assailed.

9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made and as incorporated in the impugned order reads hereunder as:

10. The facts giving rise to this civil miscellaneous petition is that the plaintiffs filed Eviction Title Suit in the court of learned Munsif, Ranchi against the defendant praying therein a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default in making payment of rent and personal necessity under the provisions of B.B.C. Act, 1982.

11. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant with respect to the suit premises by the vendor plaintiff and the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent with respect to the suit premises since January 2002 and the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

12. The defendant filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs mainly on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit and the defendant is in possession in assertion of his own right since 1970 and the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands.

13. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that the area of the suit property is 4 Katha 6 Chhatak which has been inadvertently left in the schedule of the suit property.

14. The defendant filed objection to the said petition stating therein that amendment petition has been filed at belated stage when the suit has been posted for hearing final arguments.

15. The learned court below vide order dated 27.01.2023 allowed the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs at belated stage.

16. Pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2023 allowing amendment, the defendant filed a petition for grant of one month time to the defendant for filing additional written statement.

17. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the said petition praying therein to reject the petition filed by the defendant for filing additional written statement in the suit.

18. The learned court by order dated 30.05.2023 has rejected the petition filed by the defendant for filing additional written statement.

19. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders dated 27.01.2023 and 30.05.2023, the present petition has been filed.

20. The admitted fact herein as would appear from the pleading and the impugned order is that the suit for decree of recov