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

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

02. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Purnea in Title Suit No. 253 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') has been rejected.

03. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order impugned is not sustainable, I do not find any force in this argument, for the reason that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was completely vague. The amendment sought is reproduced for reference:

"(A) In Page No. 8 after end of Para-11 add Para "11(1) that it is submitted that recently it has been learnt that defendant 2nd party namely Rajeev Kumar Mahto and Chandan Mehta in collusion with each other has forcibly obtained thumb impression of Defendant No. 1 subsequent to the filing of the above mentioned Suit" to be lamented."

04. Now, bare reading of this amendment shows that the plaintiffs/petitioners want to insert new paragraph-11(1) after paragraph-11 with the averment that the defendant no.2 and one Chandan Mehta forcibly obtained the thumb impression of defendant no.1 subsequent to filing of the suit. Without mentioning anything about thumb impression being taken on any document pertaining to the suit or what is the relevance of this statement, the amendment application of the plaintiffs/petitioners does not deserve any consideration and the same has been rightly rejected by learned trial court. Though learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment has been sought in the light of written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 wherein she has stated about defendant no. 2 obtaining her left thumb impression fraudulently on some stamp paper, the same could not be taken as the statement of the plaintiffs unless the plaintiffs amend their plaint to bring the said fact on record and without any statement/averment being made in the amendment application to connect the amendment with the statement of the written statement, the amendment sought to be incorporated is completely vague and frivolous.

05. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2016, the same is affirmed.

06. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.