Patna High Court
Manohar Henry And Ors vs Jai Shankar Kumar on 8 January, 2024
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1729 of 2018
======================================================
1. Manohar Henry, Son of Late Danial Henry
2. Murial Henry, Wife of Michael Henry
3. Sushil Henry, Son of Michael Henry
4. Niranjan Henry, Son of Late Danial Henry
5. Suvina Henry, Daughter of Late Danial Henry, All resident of Village-
Mauza Thalha Garhia Tola, Lal Bihari Kunj, P.S.- Triveniganj, District-
Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Jai Shankar Kumar, Son of Late Suryanarayan Yadav, resident of Village-
Kumiahi, Panchayat- Simari, P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.N.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Navesh Nandan, Advocate
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2024
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The instant petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge-VI, Supaul in Title Suit No. 26 of 1998 rejecting the
amendment petition dated 17.03.2005 of the
plaintiffs/petitioners.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1729 of 2018 dt.08-01-2024
2/4
petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Title
Suit No. 26 of 1998 for a declaration that the lands described in
schedule-2 of the plaint are in possession of the plaintiffs.
Bringing the amendment petition, the plaintiffs have sought a
number of amendments including declaration of Sale Deed Nos.
3315 and 3316 dated 21.03.1983 to be void, illegal and not
binding on the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge though
gave a finding regarding the declaration sought for the sale
deeds to be time barred, the learned Subordinate Court did not
express any opinion on other amendments sought on behalf of
the plaintiffs. Learned senior counsel further submits that
plaintiffs do not want to press that portion of the amendment by
which a declaration has been sought with regard to status of
Sale Deed Nos. 3315 and 3316 dated 21.03.1983. However, so
far as other amendments are concerned, the learned Subordinate
Court ought to have considered these amendments. Since these
amendments are formal in nature, the same may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
vehemently countered the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners
have brought the amendment petition after much delay. The suit
has been filed in the year 1998 and the amendment petition was
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1729 of 2018 dt.08-01-2024
3/4
filed in the year 2005 but the petitioners were having full
knowledge about the aforesaid sale deeds and other facts on
which amendment has been sought. However, learned counsel
submits that since the matter is quite old, it needs to be
adjudicated at the earliest. The learned counsel further submitted
that if no relief is being sought regarding Sale Deed Nos. 3315
and 3316 dated 21.02.1983, other amendments may be
considered and a reasoned order could be passed by the learned
trial court after consideration within a stipulated period and the
suit before it may be expeditiously disposed of.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and submissions made on behalf of both the parties, I think it is
fair enough on part of the parties in submitting that the suit,
which is quite old, is disposed of at the earliest. At the same
time, since there is no finding with regard to other amendments
apart from the amendment with regard to Sale Deed Nos.3315
and 3316 dated 21.02.1983, the learned trial court was duty
bound to record its finding as to whether the amendment should
be allowed or rejected with its reasons. Hence, the order dated
16.04.2016
passed by the learned Sub Judge-VI, Supaul in Title
Suit No. 26 of 1998 is set aside and the learned trial court is
directed to pass a reasoned order on the amendment petition
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1729 of 2018 dt.08-01-2024
barring that portion in which amendment has been sought with
regard to Sale Deed Nos. 3315 and 3316 dated 21.03.1983.
Since the relief with regard to it has been given up by the
petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in part.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not made any
comment on merits of the case. The learned trial court is
directed to dispose of the amendment petition within two
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order without getting prejudiced by anything said here.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
