Jharkhand High Court
Lal Jai Gobind Rai vs Lal Harihar Rai on 17 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.C. No. 3758 of 2019
Lal Jai Gobind Rai ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Lal Harihar Rai
2. Lal Ram Kumar Rai
3. Lal Bishwanath Rai ......Respondents
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh ,Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 20.09.2023 Pronounced On: 17.10.2023
1. This writ petition under Article of 227 of Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division
VI, Ranchi in original Title Suit No. 611 of 2011 whereby and whereunder
Miscellaneous Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the
defendant/petitioner for making amendment in written statement was allowed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the amendment which has been allowed to
make in the written statement as regards amendment nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, the
same has got no nexus with the issues involved in the suit, since the entire suit
pertains to declaration of right and title over Plot No. 2549 of Khata No. 669
comprising of 2.46 acres, situated at village Ulatu P.S. Namkum, while amendment
no. 3 is about Plot No. 4925, the stand has been taken with respect to the said
amendment in the written statement as such, there is no requirement of calling any
amendment, since the pleading to that effect is already available in the written
statement. Therefore, submission has been made that the amendment is nothing but
to delay the suit at the stage of arguments, which is likely to cause great prejudice
to the petitioner because such amendments has tendency to drag the suit at the
stage of framing of the issues.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that the
plaintiff at para 3 of the plaint have specifically stated that Lalman Mohan is the
son of Lal Shambhu Rai had died issueless which was replied by defendants at
para 9 of the written statement that Lal Lalman Mohan Rai son of Lal Shambhu
Rai died leaving behind his widow Dhanmani Kuer and his son Ghanshyam Rai as
his class I legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act. It is further submitted that the
defendants came to know on or about 15.02.2018 that said Ghanshyam Rai has
sold 0.94 acres of land of plot no. 4925 and 0.10 acres of plot no. 4924 under
Khata No. 669 situated at village Ulatu, P.S. Ranchi to Smt. Naresh Kuwari Devi
by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 18.07.1974, the certified copy is obtained
by these defendants and another fact also came into knowledge of defendants on or
about 05.01.2018 that Jai Govind Rai, "plaintiff No. 1" without the notice,
knowledge or consent of the defendant fraudulently and collusively sold 0.40 acres
of land out of suit plot to Narayan Rai by virtue of registered sale deed dated
02.03.1977 and certified copy has been obtained by the defendants. Therefore, the
defendants have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
CPC seeking following amendments in their written statement:-
I. That after paragraph 6 separate para 6 A be added as follows " that the suit is
bad for non-joinder of Smt. Naresh Kuwari Devi wife of Bhupeshar Rai of
Village-Ulatu, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi and Narayan Rai son of Lal
Chintamani Rai of Village-Raja Ulatu, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi
who are necessary parties in the suit.
II. That after paragraph 12 of the written statement, a separate paragraph 12A
be added as follows:-
"That these defendants recently came to know that Ghanshyam Rai son of Late
Lal Mohan Rail sold 0.94 acres of land being plot no. 4925 and 0.10 acres being
Plot no. 4924 of Khata no. 669 situated at Village-Ulatu Mahadeo Toli, P.S.
Namkum, District-Ranchi to Smt. Naresh Kuwari Devi wife of Bhupeshar Rai
of Village-Ulatu Mahadeo Toli, P.S. Namkum, District-
Ranchi by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 registered before
the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and entered in Book No. I, Volume No. 44,
Pages 331 to 333 being deed No. 11997 for the year 1975. The above registered
sale deed falsify the claim of the plaintiffs that Lal Man Mohan Rai died
issueless.
III. That after paragraph 12A of the written statement, a separate paragraph 12
B be added as follows-" that these defendants also came to know recently that
Jai Govind Rai " plaintiff No. 1" without the notice and knowledge of these
defendants fraudulently and collusively sold 40 decimals of land out of suit land
2.46 acres out of plot no. 2549 khata No. 669 situated at village-Raja Ulatu,
P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi to Narayan Rai son of late Lal Chintamani Rai of
village Raja Ulatu, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi by virtue of registered sale
deed dated 02.03.1977 registered before the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi
entered in Book No. 1 , Volume No. 12, page no. 147 to 148 deed no. 1784 for
the year 1977. The land so sold belongs to these defendants who are in peaceful
possession thereof. The said deed of sale is fraudulent, collusive, void ab initio
and not binding on these defendant.
4. It is further submitted that the defendants never came to know about the said
facts prior to 05.01.2018 and could not know the same by exercising due diligence.
The learned court below considering all the aspects of the case and issues involved
for adjudication has rightly allowed the petition of the defendants for amendment
of written statement, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any
interference by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and present petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. It appears that the learned court below has very wisely considered the rival
contentions of the parties in the light of proposed amendments and also recorded
findings that the plaintiffs have earlier filed two miscellaneous application at the
stage of argument one was dismissed as not pressed and another is still pending for
disposal as such the ground of delay in trial raised by the plaintiffs is not
sustainable and the proposed amendment is necessary to adjudicate all the related
controversies involved in the instant suit and also to avoid the multiplicity of
litigation and for just and proper decision of the suit, which may be allowed even
after commencement of the trial. The plaintiff himself has filed a suit concealing
the material facts. Accordingly, petition under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed.
6. I have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of this case and find that
the learned court below has taken into notice the proviso to order VI Rule 17 CPC
about exercise of due diligence by the party seeking amendment in pleading after
commencement of trial and in the factual background as well as in the interest of
complete, effective and final adjudication of all the controversies involved in the
case has passed the impugned order. In my considered view there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order and no valid scope for interference by exercising
power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, present writ
petition is dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Rajnish/-
