Binay Kumar Srivastava @ Binay ... vs Ram Pravesh Persad @ Ram Pravesh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4201 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.323 of 2018
     ======================================================

Binay Kumar Srivastava @ Binay Kumar S/o Late Kalika Prasad, resident of Village- Bararam, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Ram Pravesh Persad @ Ram Pravesh Bhagat, S/o Gulab Bhagat

2. Most. Shushela Kuar, W/o Late Singhasan Prasad,

3. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava @ Tribhuan S/o Late Singhasan Prasad,

4. Ravishankar Kumar Srivastava @ Vipul, S/o Late Singhasan Prasad,

5. Upendra Kumar Srivastava @ Sonu, S/o Late Singhasan Prasad, All are resident of Village- Bararam, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr.Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
     For the Respondent/s   :    Mr. Naresh Prasad

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL

Date : 02-08-2022

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 67 of

2006, filed for cancellation of sale deed and the respondents, who

are defendants in the suit, have filed their written statement.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated

19.12.2017, passed, in Title Suit No. 67 of 2006, by learned Sub

Judge-XI, Siwan, by which the amendments ¼d) (£) and (x) sought Patna High Court C.Misc. No.323 of 2018 dt.02-08-2022

by the respondents-defendants in their written statement has been

allowed at the stage of evidence.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by

way of filing amendment, the respondents-defendants have sought

to add some persons as parties-defendants in the suit and also to

make amendment in the written statements. The details of the

amendment sought by the respondents-defendants is mentioned in

Annexure-1 to this application.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner, being the plaintiff, is the dominus litus and the

respondents-defendants have tried to add some strangers as

parties-defendants in the suit in order to delay the disposal of the

suit. The respondents-defendants have failed to establish before the

learned Trial Court as to how in absence of these persons, the

issues involved in the suit cannot be effectually decided. He also

submits that other two amendments, at (£) and (x) sought by the

respondents-defendants were the subject matter of additional

written statement filed by the respondents-defendants in the year

2010, which was rejected by learned Trial Court, vide its order,

dated 29.08.2017.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondents submits that insofar as amendments sought by the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.323 of 2018 dt.02-08-2022

respondents-defendants, at (£) and (x), are concerned, these are

the relevant facts in order to decide the controversies between the

parties and no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff if the

amendments are allowed.

7. Relying the on the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal

and Others v. K. K. Modi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC

385, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the object of

Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is that the courts should try the

merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently,

allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the

real question in controversy between the parties provided it does

not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

8. With regard to amendment at ¼d), seeking to add some

persons as parties-defendants, learned Counsel for the respondents

failed to show even before this Court as to how these persons are

proper and/or necessary parties in the suit.

9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the materials on record, I find that the

amendments (£) and (x) sought by the respondents-defendants is

not exactly the same, which was brought by way of additional

written statement by the respondents-defendants.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.323 of 2018 dt.02-08-2022

10. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that amendments

(£) and (x) are necessary to decide the controversies involved in

the suit. However, insofar amendment ¼d), regarding addition of

parties sought by the respondents, is concerned, I find that

respondents have failed to establish before this Court that they are

necessary and/or proper parties.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order insofar as the

learned Trial Court has allowed amendment ¼d) sought by the

respondents regarding addition of parties is hereby set aside. The

other part of the impugned order shall remain intact.

12. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent

indicated above.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                         AFR
CAV DATE                         N/A
Uploading Date                03-08-2022
Transmission Date                N/A