PATNA, India, July 9 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 3:
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and I intend to dispose of the present civil miscellaneous petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 407 of 2004 by learned Sub Judge VI, Gopalganj whereby and whereunder the amendment petition filed by the defendants has been allowed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner and respondents 2nd set/respondent nos. 16-17 are plaintiff before the learned trial court and they have filed a suit seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over Schedule II land as mentioned in the plaint and for partition of Schedule I land and also for a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants/respondents 1st set appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. On 14.12.2015 the defendants filed an amendment application seeking amendment in their written statement. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj vide order dated 26.01.2016 allowed the amendment application which is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the plaintiffs/petitioner to file any rejoinder. The case record was earlier pending before the Court of learned Sub Judge-III, Gopalganj but by the administrative order of learned District Judge, Gopalganj, the suit was transferred to the Court of learned Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj and the plaintiff was unaware about this fact. In absence of the plaintiff, before the newly transferred Court, the defendants filed the amendment application. When the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about the transfer of the case and filing of amendment application, he sought adjournment from the learned trial court and filed a rejoinder on 27.01.2016 but came to know that the order was already passed by the learned Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj on 26.01.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is perverse and illegal. The learned trial court was not justified in allowing the amendment as the amendments are not of formal nature and would change the nature of claim of the defendants against the plaintiff. Further not providing an opportunity of filing rejoinder to the amendment petition is unjust, improper and violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and had occasioned in failure and miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further submits that moreover by way of amendment, the defendants have sought to withdraw admission already made in the written statement and the same cannot be allowed. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order be set aside and the amendment application of the defendants be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/respondent 1st set vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the learned trial court, after consideration of facts and circumstances, properly allowed the amendment application. The amendments are most formal in nature and it is the settled law that amendments in written statement are allowed more liberally than the amendments in plaint. Learned counsel further submits that there is no withdrawal of any admission and rather some typographical mistakes had been sought to be corrected in the written statement. Therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and if the amendments were not allowed, there would have been contradiction and confusion in the pleadings of the defendants. Amendments were just and proper and have been rightly allowed by the learned trial court.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMTk0IzIwMTYjMSNO-zDzxajfj--ak1--eM=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
