Advocates:
['ROHITASHYA ROY ALIS ROHIT ROY', '', 'TARUN KR MAHATO', 'P K MUKHOPADHYAY']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.2057 of 2017

-----

Shreeniwas Singh, son of Late Jainath Singh, resident of

Babudih, P.O-'B' Polytechnic, P.S-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad

…...... Petitioner

-Versus-

Ramniwas Singh, son of Late Jainath Singh, resident of Babudih,

P.O-'B' Polytechnic, P.S-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad

..….... Respondent

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

-----

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Adv.

For the Respondent

: Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

-----

05/22.10.2018

The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No.48

of 2013, is aggrieved of order dated 04.03.2017 by which

amendment in the plaint has been declined by the trial

judge.

2.

At the outset it needs to be indicated that at the

time when the plaintiff filed an application for amendment,

by that time issues in the suit were not settled. The plaint

was presented on 19.02.2013, the defendant has filed his

written statement on 17.05.2014 and the amendment

application was filed on 03.11.2014.

3.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC which permits

amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings

is founded on the principles of equity, justice and good

conscience.

4.

The plaintiff has pleaded that during his

life-time their father has purchased the suit schedule

property through two separate sale-deeds and during the

life-time of their father they were living in jointness; the

plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. Claiming his

half share in the house which was jointly constructed by the

plaintiff and the defendant over the land which was

purchased by their father, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of

his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

It is not in dispute that the land comprised under

2

Plot Nos.500 and 501, measuring 7 kathas was purchased

by the plaintiff on 19.05.2004 and the defendant has

purchased about 9 decimals land from Upendra Kumar

Singh through sale-deed dated 18.07.2011 and plaintiff has

also purchased southern side of land of Plot No.449 from

Rakesh Kumar Singh through sale-deed dated 29.02.2012.

The plaintiff through amendment application is seeking to

incorporate the following facts:

i.

After para 14 a new para 14 (a) be inserted

in following manner:-

14.(A) That, in order to appreciate plaintiff's case,

plaintiff submits that during the life time of Jainath

Singh, the property was purchased vide from Regd.

Sale-Deed being no.12085 and 12084 dated

19.12.1988 in the name of plaintiff and defendant who

were residing in jointness with their father and

subsequently, the plaintiff and defendant alongwith

their father jointly constructed residential houses there

upon on for southern side of Plot No.449 and started

living therein since 1995. That, it is also pertinent to

mention here that subsequently both plaintiff and

defendant have constructed separate house on suit

land and earlier residential house on suit plot remain

ejmail between plaintiff and defendant for all purpose.

(ii) In relief portion in relief (a) after the word

“below” following be inserted “to the extent of

plaintiff's half share in lands and house constructed by

the plaintiff and defendant jointly prior to execution of

Sale-Deed No.1120 dated 29.02.2012 in favour of

plaintiff and Deed No.11587 dated 18.07.2011 in

favour of defendant.

(iii) In relief (a) portion after the word “below”, the

word “of the plaint” be deleted.

5.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court

may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage

of the proceedings. If amendment in the pleadings is

necess