Jharkhand High Court
Most. Lathua @ Latika Devi vs Ropni Devi on 16 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 602 of 2022
1.Most. Lathua @ Latika Devi
2.Rajeev Mahto
3.Satish Mahto
4.Suman Mahto
5.Minor Nimoo @ Nomita Kumari
6.Minor Bablu Mahto
7.Minor Chotoo Mahto
8.Smt. Munni Devi .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.Ropni Devi
2.Minor Charan Mahto
3.Minor Vishnu Mahto .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. S. Mukharjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) :
......
04/ 16.12.2022. The instant CMP has been filed for quashing of the order dated
19.05.2022 passed by learned A.J.C. 1st, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.23 of 2019
whereby and where under the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
amendment in the written statement has been rejected.
The plaintiff/ Opp. Party No.1 filed Original (Partition) Suit No.150 of 2022
for partition in which the present petitioners have been impleaded as defendants.
The said suit was decreed and against the judgment and decree, the present
petitioners have moved before the 1st Appellate Court. The petitioners moved the
learned Appellate Court for bringing the following amendments in their written
statement. At the end of Para-7 of the written statement, the followings are to be
inserted :-
"Few days ago these Defendants came to know that the said Rathu Munda
the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 had expired in the month of December 2002 leaving
behind the plaintiffs as his heirs. Hence the alleged marriage between Ratan Mahto
& Ropni Devi during subsistence of the previous marriage of the plaintiff No.1 is
void".
The learned court below has rejected the amendment petition, inter-alia, on
the ground that it will change the nature of the suit and it will also amount to
withdrawing the admission of the defendants in their written statement.
It is further submitted that the impugned order has been assailed on the
ground that the specific averments have been made in the written statement denying
allegation of marriage between plaintiff no.1 and said Ratan Mahto and it was
pleaded that the plaintiff no.1 was married with Rathu Munda and she was living
with him and plaintiff nos.2 and plaintiff no.3 were born from the wedlock of Rathu
Munda.
It is submitted that however for determination of some questions in
controversy in between the parties, this amendment is necessary for end of justice.
Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the decision
rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K. K. Modi & Ors.,
reported in 2006 (3) Supreme 507 [Civil Appeal Nos.5350-5351 of 2002].
The present suit is a partition and therefore it is inconceivable that the
petitioners were unaware about the marital status of the plaintiff and came to know
about the death of her husband only at the appellate stage. I do not find any infirmity
in the impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
