Jharkhand High Court
Bano Khatoon ... ...Defendant No. ... vs Md. Idris .... ...Plaintiff/ on 12 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 215 of 2022
---
Bano Khatoon ... ...Defendant no. 2/Petitioner
Versus
1. Md. Idris .... ...Plaintiff/Respondent
2. Jaffruddin Ansari
3. Gulam Mustafa
.... ...Defendants/Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :
Order No. 03 Dated: 12.08.2022
The present C.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated
06.01.2022 (Annexure-4 to the present C.M.P) passed by the Civil Judge
(Jr. Division), Hazaribag in Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1995 whereby an
application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 under Order VI Rule 17
of C.P.C., registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 12 of 2020 has been
allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1995 in the court of
Additional Munsif, Hazaribag seeking eviction of the defendants including
the petitioner, who was defendant no. 2 in the said suit, from the suit
premises on the ground of personal necessity under section 11(1)(c) of
the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The
defendants appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement
denying relationship of landlord and tenant between them and asserted
their possession over the suit land on the basis of valid title. The said suit
was dismissed by the Additional Munsif, Hazaribag vide judgment and
decree dated 28.05.2009. The respondent no. 1, thereafter, preferred an
appeal being Eviction Title Appeal No. 04 of 2009. The appellate court i.e.
the court of District Judge-II, Hazaribag, vide order dated 09.07.2015,
allowed the respondent no. 1 to make amendment in paragraph-17 of the
plaint as prayed in his amendment application dated 04.08.2014 which is
as follows:
"In para-17 of the plaint after the word 'defendant' beginning
from the word 'under ......... up to the word jurisdiction' be
deleted and its place, the following be added:
"On the basis of title under the general law and as such
the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court
fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- upon which ad-valorem court fee is
being paid on the plaint."
3. Thereafter, the appellate court remanded the matter to the original
court for adjudication of title between the parties on payment of ad-
valorem court fee by the appellant/plaintiff/respondent no.1. The plaintiff
thereafter filed an amendment application before the original court on
29.01.2020 which was rejected on technical ground. However,
subsequently, the plaintiff filed another application on 13.02.2020 before
the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hazaribag under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
seeking amendment in the plaint. The petitioner and other defendants
filed reply to the said application opposing the proposed amendment,
however the learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2022,
allowed the said application filed by the plaintiff/the respondent no.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned
trial court committed serious error in allowing the petitioner's application
seeking amendment in the plaint at such a belated stage which will
amount to burdening the petitioner and other defendants to contest
de novo trial as the matter has literally gone back to the stage of
institution of the suit itself which is pending since 1995. Under the said
circumstance, the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the
learned trial court may be set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the content of
present C.M.P.
6. On bare perusal of order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the District
Judge-II, Hazaribag in Eviction Title Appeal No. 04/2009, it appears that
learned appellate court having found that the subject matter of eviction is
disputed and there is essence of title, allowed the respondent no.1 to
make amendment in the plaint and remanded the suit to the trial court
with a direction to adjudicate the title between the parties after taking the
ad-valorem court-fee from the plaintiff/the respondent no. 1.
7. The order dated 09.07.2015 remained unchallenged and thus the
same has attained finality. The respondent no.1 filed the amendment
application dated 13.02.2020 so as to describe her title over the suit
property. Since by the order of the learned District Judge, the trial court
was required to adjudicate the title between the parties, it rightly allowed
the said amendment application since the suit was earlier filed by the
respondent no.1 for eviction of the petitioner under section 11(1)(c) of the
Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 wherein the
respondent no.1 was not required to prove his title over the suit property,
however after allowing the amendment and remand of the case by learned
appellate court, the respondent no. 1 is required to prove his title under
general law.
8. So far the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner that the
belated amendment application filed by the respondent no. 1 should not
have been allowed by the learned trial court, it is a well settled principle of
law that amendment application can be allowed at any stage of the
proceeding for the purpose of determining real controversies between the
parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no infirmity in the order dated
06.01.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hazaribag in Eviction
Suit No. 03 of 1995.
10. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
