PATNA, India, July 30 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 14:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

02. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Chapra in Title Suit No. 370 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the application dated 26.08.2016 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') has been rejected.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and it is illegal and improper. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed this amendment application to clarify the pleading and seeking a relief on the basis of such pleading, which has been left to be mentioned in the main plaint. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff has mentioned about Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of his plaint about the defendant/respondent 1st set in the present case getting a fraudulent decree from the court with regard to suit property and the plaintiff has sought amendment to reproduce this fact after para-11 that by the said Title Suit No. 228 of 1993, the defendant no. 1 did not get any right, title or possession and the decree is a void document and thereafter, sought the relief that the decree of Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 be declared void and frivolous document by which the defendant no. 1 did not get any title or possession over the suit property. Learned counsel further submits that the said amendment is necessary for adjudication of real question of controversy between the parties and though the amendment has been sought at a late stage, still, in the interest of justice, it should have been allowed.

04. Perused the record.

05. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 that the amendment has been sought at the stage of argument and it is also a fact that the plaintiff/petitioner has mentioned about the same facts in paragraphs-9, 10 and 11 of his plaint though in different terms. It is a also apparent from the pleadings that father of the plaintiff/petitioner was a party in the said suit. Thus, the plaintiff/petitioner is seeking an amendment from a court of same jurisdiction about declaration of decree, which was passed by the court of same jurisdiction, to be a void document, for which the plaintiff/petitioner has separate remedy available.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMTU4NyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-A8ukT51ugdY=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.