Patna High Court
Jagdeo Rishideo vs Tulsi Sharan on 5 December, 2023
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1299 of 2018
======================================================
1. Jagdeo Rishideo, Son of Singeshwar Rishideo.
2. Vindi Rishideo Son of Bhup & Mola Rishideo.
3. Kali Devi, Daughter of late Ram Prasad Rishideo.
4. Draupadi Devi, Daughter of late Ram Prasad Rishideo.
5. Baldeo Rishideo, Son of late Ram Prasad Rishideo.
6. Ranjan Kumari, Daughter of late Umesh Rishideo.
All resident of Village and P.O. Beshra, P.S. Kumarkhand, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Tulsi Sharan.
2. Sanjay Kumar.
Both sons of Shri Jugrt Lal Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O.
Beshra, P.S. Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
3. Kripanand Kumar.
4. Ramanand Kumar.
5. Phulchand Kumar.
6. Arjun Kumar,
All sons of late Umesh Rishideo.
7. Most. Ahukhari Devi, Wife of late Umesh Rishideo.
8. Girja Kumari, Daughter of late Umesh Rishideo.
9. Bijendra Rishideo.
10. Kailu Rishideo.
Both sons of late Ram Prasad Rishideo
all Resident of Village and P.O. Beshra, P.S. Kumarkhand, District-
Madhepura.
11. Pramila Devi, Wife of late Durga Prasad Sah.
12. Binod Sah.
13. Rajesh Sah.
14. Lalo Sah
All sons of late Durga Prasad Sah.
All Resident of Village Karuvailly(Baisadh), P.S. Kumarkhand,
District-Madhepura.
15. Pramod Kumar Sah, Son of late Surya Narayan Sah, Resident of Mouza
Irain Khurd, P.S. Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
16. Kumar Arun Chandra Singh Bahadur, Son of late Kumar Indra Chandra
Singh Bahadur.
17. Kumar Jagdish Chandra Singh Bahadur, Son of Kumar Bimal Chandra
Singh Bahadur.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1299 of 2018 dt.05-12-2023
2/6
18. Kumar Amresh Chandra Singh Bahadur, Son of Kumar Bimal Chandra
Singh Bahadur.
19. Kumar Brindaband Chand Singh Bahadur, Son of late Manindra Chandra
Singh Bahadur.
Respondent Nos. 16 to 19 are resident of Paikpara Calcutta,
Proprietor of Paikpara Deobattar Estate Calcutta.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
For the Respondent No1 & 2: Mr.Lal Sachindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha No.2, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-12-2023
In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 04.06.2018 passed by learned Munsif, Madhepura, in Title
Suit No.105 of 1997, by which the application dated 13.04.2018
filed by the petitioners/original defendant 1st party under Order
VI, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in
the written statement has been rejected.
2. The facts of this case, as stated in the writ
petition, are that the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Title Suit
No.105 of 1997 in the Court of learned Munsif, Madhepura, for
declaration of their title over the suit land, confirmation of
possession, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In
the plaint, it has been alleged that the properties as detailed in
Schedule-B of the plaint belonged to the predecessors of the
original defendant 3rd party and they settled the said land
through a registered Kabuliat in favour of the ancestors of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1299 of 2018 dt.05-12-2023
3/6
original defendant 2nd set, who sold Scheduled-A of the plaint to
the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed. In the said suit,
written statement was filed by the petitioners and denied the
entire averments made in the plaint on various grounds. It has
also been alleged in the written statement that Lalji Sah was
nearer and dearer to Kiro Sah and Hiro Sah, son of Kapuchand
Sah and they had taken the suit land in settlement in the name of
Lalji Sah. It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage of
hearing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that another Title
Suit No. 179 of 2004 was going on in the Court of learned 1 st
Sub-ordinate Judge, Madhepura, between the parties litigating
under the same title and there also the issue was as to whether
the settlement had been taken by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah or Lalji
Sah. During the course of hearing of Title Suit No. 179 of 2004,
the plaintiffs also came to know that the settlement was not
taken in the name of Lalji Sah by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah. Hiro
Sah and Kiro Sah had taken loan from one Bhagli Usha, who
filed a Money Suit No. 49 of 1932 against said persons for
recovery of her debt. The suit was decreed and execution case
was filed by decree holder. During the pendency of the
execution case, the judgment debtor paid the decreetal amount
by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah and accordingly, the execution case
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1299 of 2018 dt.05-12-2023
4/6
was dismissed after full satisfaction. According to the
petitioners, all these facts were came as surprise and therefore,
the petitioner/original defendants made further inquiries and
upon realizing that under a wrong impression they made certain
statement in the written statement, they filed an amendment
petition in the written statement, which was dismissed by the
impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners did not withdraw the admission made in the
written statement rather by the proposed amendment they made
clarification with regard to the statement made in the written
statement and the amendment in the written statement should
not be viewed at par with the amendment in the plaint.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-
respondents has opposed the amendment sought for by the
defendant 1st party only on the ground that the admissions
cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by any party by way of
amendment.
5. Considered the submissions of the parties
and perused the materials on record.
6. The petitioners wanted to delete the sentence
"Kiro Sah and Hiro Sah took settlement of the land in the name
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1299 of 2018 dt.05-12-2023
5/6
of Lalji Sah as Benamidar" and also add some facts that "Hiro
Sah and Kiro Sah had taken loan from Smt. Bhagli Usha. Bhagli
Usha filed money suit for recovery of her debt. The suit was
decreed and Execution Case was filed by the decree holder.
During the pendency of Execution Case No. 217 of 1934, the
judgment debtor paid the decreetal amount by Hiro Sah and
Kiro Sah and consequently, Money Execution Case No. 217 of
1934 was dismissed after full satisfaction" as well as other
sentences which clarified these statements.
7. I find substance in the submission of the
petitioners that by the proposed amendment the defendants were
seeking clarification with regard to the statements made in the
written statement and the same cannot be treated at par with the
amendment in the plaint, inasmuch as the defendant can take
additional defence at any time or at any stage of the suit.
Further, the suit is at the stage of plaintiffs evidence. In my
opinion, the proposed amendment is not for withdrawing any
admission but is for clarifying the statements made in the
written statement and as such, the amendment should have been
allowed.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and also
cosidering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1299 of 2018 dt.05-12-2023
6/6
the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, this
application is allowed. Accordingly, order dated 04.06.2018
passed by learned Munsif, Madhepura, in Title Suit No.105 of
1997 is hereby set aside. The amendment petition dated
13.04.2018
filed by the petitioners / original defendant 1st party
is allowed. The Court below is directed to proceed further in the
suit.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 05.12.2023
Transmission Date
