Jharkhand High Court
Manorama Devi vs Sheela Devi Agarwal on 12 January, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1497 of 2016
1. Manorama Devi, Wife of Late Deo Narayan Lal
2. Dharmendra Narayan Lal
3. Hemendra Narayan Lal
Sl. No. 2 & 3 sons of Late Deo Narayan Lal
All residents of Mohalla Jail Hata, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj,
District: Palamau ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sheela Devi Agarwal, Wife of Shri Brij Mohan Lal Agarwal
2. Om Prakash Agarwal, son of Banshi Lal Agarwal
3. Siddhartha Kumar
4. Sachin Kumar
5. Sarat Chandra
6. Suresh Chandra
Sl No. 3 to 6 sons of Om Prakash Agarwal
Sl. No. 1 to 6 all residents of Arya Samaj Road,
Near Kanni Ram Marwari Middle School, Daltonganj, P.O. + P.S.:
Daltonaganj, District: Palamau
7. Nand Kishore Singh, Son of Raghubansh Narayan Singh
8. Ravindra Goswami, Son of Late Ramgati Goswami, SL. No. 7 & 8
residents of Brahman Vidyalaya Road, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj
Town, District: Palamau. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
---
08/12.01.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in
Title Suit No. 1 of 2007 whereby the petition seeking amendment
under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been rejected.
3. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that the plaint of Title Suit No. 1 of 2007 has
not been filed, however, the petition seeking amendment has been
filed in this writ record.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that a suit was filed seeking
a permanent injunction in which a petition was filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking a temporary injunction which
was rejected. An appeal was filed against the order rejecting
temporary injunction in which an order of status-quo was passed on
12.03.2007 but the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 10.12.2010. In
the meantime, a petition was also filed alleging non-compliance with
the order of status-quo order which was also dismissed along with the
appeal on 10.12.2010. The learned counsel submits that in the
meantime, the petitioners have been dispossessed from the land and
the respondents have made pucca construction over the property
therefore, they filed a petition for amendment of plaint seeking
recovery of possession of the suit property.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that the amendment was filed on account of subsequent development
which ought to have been allowed by the learned Court below, but
having rejected, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel
for the petitioners has submitted that the suit is pending and is at the
stage of evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and
has submitted that the nature of the suit will change and merely
because dispossession from the suit property is claimed to be a
subsequent development, the same is not sufficient to allow the
amendment. He submits that the impugned order rejecting the
amendment does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the sequence of proceedings narrated by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is not in dispute. The records indicate that a petition
for permanent injunction was filed in which a petition for temporary
injunction was also filed which was rejected and ultimately, the appeal
against the same was also dismissed on 10.12.2010. The petition for
amendment in the plaint filed for permanent injunction was filed on
16.02.2012 seeking recovery of possession of the suit land.
8. This Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that
the learned Court below has rejected the petition seeking amendment
on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, the same will change
the entire nature of the suit and has also observed that by seeking
amendment, the petitioners have sought to amend the entire plaint.
The reasons assigned by the learned Court while rejecting the petition
seeking amendment are quoted as under:-
"In the light of rival submission, I have perused the record. On
perusal it transpires that initially the case was filed by the Plaintiff
for permanent injunction and thereafter Misc. petition was filed for
getting temporary injunction but the petition of the plaintiff was
rejected by this Court as well as Appellate Court. Now plaintiff has
sought amendment for entire plaint and has proposed several
amendments in his petition but when I go through the amendments I
clearly found that this amendments are totally changed the nature of
the suit and it is directly contravention of the Code. The judgment
filed by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff are of before 2012 and
in the year 2002 Code of Civil Procedure was amended. It is settled
principle of law that amendment cannot be allowed if it changes the
entire nature of the suit admittedly plaintiff has filed the suit for
injunction and now he wants to convert it in Title Suit so it is quite
clear that if this amendment would be allowed it will cause change
in entire nature of the suit and it would be against the norms of the
legal principle.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I
do not think that amendment should be allowed and accordingly
petition of the plaintiff is hereby rejected.
Put up on 21.01.2016 for further proceeding i.e. framing of
issue."
9. After having gone through the impugned order, this Court is of
the considered view that the amendment sought in the present case
would change the nature of the suit, and if the amendment is allowed
the petitioners would be seeking recovery of possession of the suit
land based on their claim of title over the suit property. This Court is
of the considered view that merely because the dispossession from the
suit land is claimed by the petitioners to be a subsequent development,
the same is not enough to allow the amendment. The learned Court
has also recorded that the petitioners have sought several amendments
which would change the entire plaint and the petitioners have not even
filed the plaint before this Court.
10. This Court finds no illegality or perversity calling for
interference in the impugned order in the limited jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence this writ petition is
dismissed.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
12. Since the suit is of the year 2007, let a copy of this order be
communicated to the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the
suit.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
