Advocates:
['KUNDAN KR AMBASTHA', '', 'MD ZAFAR ALAM', 'KRIPA SHANKAR NANDA', 'AMAR KR SINHA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 416 of 2013

1.(i) Shamim Anwar Khan aged about 63 years

(ii) Khurshid Ahsan Khan aged about 60 years

(iii) Sohail Akhtar aged about 52 years

(iv) Raja Parwez Khan aged about 49 years

(v) Kunwar Shahid Khan aged about 45 years

(vi) Raj Kumar Aslam Khan 43 years

All sons of Late Zaibun Nissa Khanam.

All residents of Dr. Zakir Hussain Road, P.O., P.S. and District

Hazaribagh.

.…… Petitioners

Versus

1. Rameshwar Ram, son of Late Kali Ram.

2.Bisai Bhuini, wife of Late Banshi Bhuiyan, Both resident of Mohalla

Khirgaon, Mali Tola, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District Hazaribag.

……

Defendants/Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate

-----------

08/Dated: 10^th March, 2022

I.A. No.1394 of 2022

In pursuance to the order dated 03.02.2022, one interlocutory

application being I.A. No.1394 of 2022 has been filed.

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has submitted by referring to paragraph 3 thereof that the appropriate order

has been passed by the trial court by passing an order of substitution on

24.05.2019 in addition to Eviction Suit No.13 of 2011.

Therefore, submission has been made that since the deceased-

plaintiffs have been substituted, hence the order may be passed in this

interlocutory application for substituting the deceased Zaibun Nissa Khanam

with her legal heirs as per the detailed furnished under paragraph-1 thereof.

This Court after taking into consideration the fact that the legal heirs

of deceased Zaibun Nissa Khanam have already been substituted by the trial

2

court vide order dated 24.05.2019, therefore, the required substitution is

also required to be carried out in this proceeding.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1394 of 2022 is allowed.

Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the

petitioner.

W.P.(C) No.416 of 2013

The instant petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred

to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the

order dated 19.12.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No.13 of 2011 by Additional

Munsif-IX, Hazaribag has been assailed.

It is the case of the petitioner that a petition under Order-VI, Rule 17

has been filed for making amendment in the plaint to meet the

claim/objection taken by the defendants has been rejected.

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has submitted by referring to the petition filed under Order-VI Rule 17 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the

writ petition, wherein the proposed amendment has been sought to be carried

out in the plaint to the effect that during pendency of the suit the defendants

started constructing room to suit their accommodation as also constructed

building hither and thither on the plot in question and therefore, it was

necessitated to file petition under Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure to bring in the plaint for the adjudication of this issue also.

According to the learned counsel, the trial court has not considered the

contents of that aforesaid petition, rather, has travelled deviating from the

factual aspect as narrated in their protest petition which itself is evident from

the impugned order dated 19.12.2012. Therefore, the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eye of law.

3

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that a suit for eviction

has been filed being Eviction Suit No.13 of 2011. It is also not in dispute

that an amendment has been filed invoking the power conferred under

Order-VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making amendm