Babban Singh And Ors vs Gyanendra Pratap Singh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1569 Patna

Patna High Court

Babban Singh And Ors vs Gyanendra Pratap Singh And Ors on 14 August, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar Jha

Bench: Arun Kumar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
          CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1799 of 2018
     ======================================================
1.    Babban Singh S/o late Sri Sahayee Singh
2.   Urmila Devi W/o Sri Babban Singh
3.   Manoj Kumar Singh
4.   Pramod Kumar Singh, both Sons of Baban Singh All R/o Village Paharia,
     P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt. Kaimur A/ R/o Bhabhua Ward No. 5, Patel Nagar,
     P.S. Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur.
                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus
1.   Gyanendra Pratap Singh
2.   Narendra Praatap Singh Son of late Ram Lakhan Singh
3.   Most. Indu Kuer W/o late Satendra Pratap Singh
4.   Jitendra Pratap Singh
5.   Dharemenda Pratap Singh Son of late Satendra Pratap Singh All
     R/oVillageP.O.- Akhlaspur, P.S. Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur Bhabhua, A/p
     VillageP.O. Kanta, P.S. Saiyadraja, Distt. Chandauli U.P.
6.   Meera Devi W/o Sheo Prakash Singh, D/on late Ram Lakhan Singh R/o
     Babhua Gavain, Ward No. 20, P.S. Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur at Bhabhua.
7.   Sandhya Devi W/o Devendra Pratap Singh, D/o late Satendra Pratap Singh
     R/o VillageP.O.P.S.Jamalpur, Distt. Mirjapur Uttar Pradesh.
8.    Anil Kumar Singh Son of Sri Baban Singh R/o Village- Paharia, P.S.
      Bhagwanpur, Distt. Kaimur A/p Bhabhua Ward No. 5, Patal Nagar, P.S.
      Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur.
                                                       ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :    Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate
                                  Mr. Manogya Singh, Advocate
                                  Mr. G. R. Shahi, Advocate
                                  Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :    Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Advocate
                                  Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Advocate
                                  Md. Aatif Iqbal, Advocate
     ======================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                          CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 14-08-2025

                    The instant petition has been filed under Article 227

      of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated

      16.07.2018

passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Bhabhua (Kaimur)

in Title Suit No. 158 of 2013 whereby and whereunder petition Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

dated 27.11.2017 filed by the original plaintiff under Order 6

Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Code') has been allowed.

02. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one

Most. Chameli Kuer (original plaintiff) filed Title Suit No. 158

of 2013 against the defendants/petitioners for cancellation of

certain sale deeds bearing Nos. 92 to 97 dated 04.01.1993 in

respect of Schedule-A land. As per the case of the plaintiff, the

defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 is the relative of the plaintiff.

The respondent no. 1 had been helping the original plaintiff and

her husband in consolidation matter before the Director

Consolidation. The original plaintiff further claimed that she

was the only daughter of her father and after his death, she filed

a suit for partition bearing Partition Suit No. 46 of 1989 against

her uncle and his children. The said suit was disposed of on

compromise on 07.02.1993. While the plaintiff had been

litigating the matter, the respondent no. 1, taking the plaintiff

and her husband into confidence, made them to execute a

number of sale deeds telling them that it would create strong

evidence in their favour in the partition suit. The original

plaintiff further claimed that all the sale deeds were executed

without any consideration. In Partition Suit No. 46 of 1989, the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

respondent no. 1 did not get himself impleaded, though he later

on claimed that the original plaintiff executed sale deeds in his

favour as well as in favour of his wife and sons. The

defendants/respondents appeared and filed their written

statement. The defendants/respondents submitted in the written

statement that in Title Partition Suit No. 46 of 1989, plot no.

4130 of Khata No. 401 was also the subject matter. During

pendency of the said suit, Chameli Devi executed sale deed nos.

92 to 97 dated 04.01.1993 in favour of defendants/respondents.

The defendants of Partition Suit No. 46 of 1989 filed an

injunction petition on 22.03.1993 praying therein that plaintiff-

Chameli Devi be restrained from alienating the suit land and on

23.03.1993, details of the sale deeds executed by Chameli Devi

were given. Thereafter, Chameli Devi filed rejoinder on

23.03.1993 in which she disclosed that she had executed sale

deeds for valuable consideration and vendees are in possession

over the vended land. On 12.04.1993, an order was passed in

which the defendants and plaintiff were restrained from selling

the land. Thereafter, the defendants of Partition Suit No. 46 of

1989 filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code in

which they gave details of sale deed nos. 92 to 97 in paragraph-

5 of the said petition and the copy of the same was supplied to Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

Chameli Devi. Thereafter, a compromise petition was filed in

which one acre land of Plot No. 4130 including the land

transferred through sale deed nos. 92 to 97 was allotted to

Chameli Devi. Further Chameli Devi filed Mutation Case No.

869/95-96 for mutation of her name in Register-II in respect of

70 decimal land of said plot only excluding 30 decimal of lands

transferred through sale deed nos. 92 to 97. Her name was

entered into Register-II and she started paying rent only for 70

decimal of land. Later on, Chameli Devi further executed sale

deed no. 9408 dated 17.10.1997 in favour of Shyamal Gupta

and her sons had executed sale deed dated 27.07.2009 bearing

No. 6975 in favour of Parmanand Kesari and in both the sale

deeds, in Southern boundary, name of Baban Singh, defendant

no. 1, has been mentioned. Thus, the defendants claimed that

Chameli Devi admitted about the execution of sale deed nos. 92

to 97 and she had knowledge about execution of the aforesaid

sale deeds and thus, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit

of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation. The

defendants/respondents also filed a petition under Order 7 Rule

11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint praying that the suit

was not maintainable. During pendency of the suit, on

27.11.2017, plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

plaint under Order-VI Rule 17 of the Code. The

defendants/respondents filed the rejoinder on 06.12.2017.

Written argument along with list of documents was filed by the

defendants/petitioners. The learned trial court vide order dated

16.07.2018 allowed the amendment application of the original

plaintiff and the said order is under challenge before this Court.

03. Mr. S.S. Dvivedi, the learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the

impugned order is not sustainable as the learned trial court

failed to consider the different pronouncements of this Court as

well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been laid

down that facts which have been admitted by the parties cannot

be permitted to be withdrawn and could not be substituted with

different facts. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the

order impugned has been passed without considering the points

raised on behalf of the defendants/petitioners in their rejoinder,

written argument and also to the rulings filed on their behalf.

The order passed by the learned trial court is erroneous on the

point that while allowing the amendment application, the trial

court observed that issues have not been framed but the court

lost sight of the fact that evidence of PW-1 Chameli Devi had

already been filed on 16.07.2014. Learned senior counsel Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

further submitted that the plaintiff had filed the amendment

application with sole ground to overcome the issue of limitation

since the defendants/petitioners have brought on record a

number of documents showing knowledge of the plaintiff about

the sale deed nos. 92 to 97. The suit of the plaintiff was time

barred. Now, the plaintiffs want to change the sale deeds with

word 'Ekrarnama (Agreement to Sale)' so as to overcome the

issue of limitation being raised by the defendants/petitioners.

Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned order

is cryptic and does not provide any reasons in passing the order.

Learned senior counsel reiterated that learned trial court

committed an error of record when it observed that no issues

have been framed till date whereas issues have already been

framed and examination-in-chief of PW-1 had already been filed

on 16.07.2014. Learned senior counsel further submitted that

the said amendment will completely change the nature of the

suit as in place of sale deeds, the plaintiffs/respondents want to

substitute the other word 'Ekrarnama (Agreement to Sale)'.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the claim of the

plaintiffs/respondents that both sides were restrained from

transferring the land by the Collector-cum-District Registrar

vide order dated 28.12.1992 is not correct as only the defendant- Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

Nathuni Singh was restrained in respect of land of Village-Arari,

P.S. No. 389 of Bhagwanpur whereas further proceeding has

been going on for the land situated in Bhabhua Municipality.

From bare reading of the plaint, it appears it is not correct to say

that due to some inadvertent mistake or typographical error, the

word 'Baynama' has been mentioned instead of word

'Ekrarnama' . Thus, the admission has been made by the

plaintiffs that the original plaintiff executed a number of sale

deeds. Now, the plaintiffs/respondents want to resile from

earlier statement made by the original plaintiff. Since the trial

has commenced, the plaintiffs/respondents are required to show

due diligence for not bringing the said fact in their plaint prior to

commencement of the trial. Thus, the learned senior counsel

submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and the

same needs to be set aside.

04. Learned senior counsel referred to the two

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the case of

the petitioners. First case referred is the decision in the case of

Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly and Ors, reported in (2008) 7

SCC 85, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though it

is the discretion of the court in permitting amendment to the

pleadings, it has to be exercised judiciously. The Hon'ble Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

Supreme Court further held that once defendants has admitted

the pleas and contentions of the plaintiff, he cannot be permitted

to withdraw the same. Learned senior counsel further submitted

that, in the present case, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that

sale deeds were executed and such sale deeds were challenged

seeking their cancellation and this fact has been mentioned in

different paragraphs. But, now the plaintiffs/respondents want to

withdraw this averment and want to substitute the word

'Baynama (sale deed)' with the word 'Ekrarnama (agreement to

sale)' . Learned senior counsel next referred to the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria

vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors, reported in (2015) 10 SCC

203 on the same proposition, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Para-23 held as under:

"23. We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava, does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled."

05. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Nath, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs

no interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted

that the original plaintiff, late Chameli Kuer, was fraudulently

made to execute sale deeds in place of agreement to sale in

favour of the defendants/petitioners. The signatures of the

mother of the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set were obtained

through fraud and misrepresentation and were used in executing

the sale deeds. The mother of the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set

came to know that defendant no. 1/petitioner no. 1 fraudulently

made her to execute sale deeds instead of agreement to sale and

thereafter, she filed the Title Suit No. 158 of 2013. In paragraph

no. 16 as well as in paragraph no. 20 of the plaint, the word

'Ekrarnama' has been mentioned but in paragraph-17, the word

'Bainama' has got erroneously mentioned and after realizing

the inadvertent typing mistake, the plaintiff filed the amendment

application dated 27.11.2017 for substituting the word

'Bainama' by the word 'Ekrarnama'. The learned trial court,

considering the fact that issues were not framed and further

considering the inadvertent typing mistake, allowed the

amendment petition vide impugned order dated 16.07.2018.

Learned counsel further submitted that it is settled principle of

law that prior to commencement of trial, amendment sought Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

must be considered liberally and should be allowed. The proviso

would come into play only when the party fails to show due

diligence on the date of filing of the amendment application.

The trial has not commenced and issues are yet to be framed

though inadvertently examination-in-chief of PW1 has been

filed without issues being framed. Therefore, there is no error on

record in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel further

submitted that at the time of considering the petition for

amendment of plaint, the court has to consider the plaint as a

whole and one paragraph could not be considered separately. In

the present case, the plaintiffs/respondents have mentioned the

word 'agreement to sale' in preceding and subsequent

paragraphs and as such, the use of word 'Baynama' is nothing

but a typographical mistake. The sole basis of the suit is that the

petitioner no. 1 has fraudulently made the original plaintiff to

sign on the impugned sale deeds purporting them to be

agreement to sale. Learned counsel further submitted that the

issue of limitation raised by the petitioners for suit being barred

by limitation would be decided by the learned trial court and is

not applicable at the stage of consideration of amendment of the

plaint. Similarly, merits of proposed amendment are not to be

considered at this stage. Thus, the learned counsel submitted Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same

needs to be sustained by this Court.

06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties as well as facts and

circumstances of the case. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code reads

as under :

"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

07. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.

Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs M/s. Narayanaswamy &

Sons & Ors, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 has formulated

basic principles in Para-63 for allowing or rejecting the

application for amendment which reads as under:-

"63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment.

(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case?

(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?

(3) The amendment sought not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application."

(emphasis supplied)

08. In sum and substance, if the amendment is

necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties

and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be

allowed even at a late stage. The law on this point has been

settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev

Builders (P) Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the law on the point of

amendment in paragraph 70 in the following manner :

"70. Our final conclusions may be summed Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

required to be allowed unless

(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a

relevant factor for consideration,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed."

09. From the facts of the present case, it transpires

that the amendment has been sought prior to commencement of

trial and it transpires the issues have not been framed. Now, Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

opposition to the amendment by the petitioners is on the ground

that an admission is being sought to be withdrawn. The plaintiff

has been knowing from the very beginning that the documents

being executed were sale deeds and in unamended paragraph,

the word 'Baynama' has been rightly entered, therefore, the

amendment is malafide. Much stress has been put on the fact

that the original plaintiff has been knowing that she was going

to execute sale deeds and thus, executed the sale deeds and also

handed over possession to the defendants. On a cursory glance,

the objection of the defendants/petitioners appears tempting. But

a deeper look shows otherwise. From the documents brought on

record, no doubt, it appears that the plaintiffs/respondents might

be having the knowledge about the documents being executed

are sale deeds but this suit has been filed seeking declaration

that the sale deeds are void as the same were without

consideration and were sham documents. It has also been

claimed that these documents were void ab initio. The original

plaintiff filed the suit taking a stand that the petitioner no. 1

convinced her husband to allow him to get 02 Aana share in the

suit property and it was the petitioner no. 1 who continued with

this champertous litigation in which the original plaintiff had

been trying to establish her right, title and interest over the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

property opposing the claim of her cousin and seeking partition

of the same. Further, the amendment is not sought to change the

nature of documents from the documents of outright sale to the

documents of agreement of sale. Rather, the plaintiff has sought

the amendment in only paragraph no. XVII to substitute the

word 'Baynama' in line nos. 4 and 5 with the word

'Ekrarnama'. Further, in subsequent paragraph-XX, the plaintiff

has stated that defendant no. 1/petitioners no. 1 got documents

of 'sale deed' prepared in place of documents of 'agreement of

sale'. Even in preceding paragraph, it has been mentioned that

defendant no. 1/petitioner no. 1 took the original plaintiff to

Bhabhua for executing the documents of agreement of sale.

Therefore, I am unable to convince myself that using word

'Ekrarnama' in Paragraph-XVII, by way of agreement, could be

said to be withdrawal of admission or the claim of the

defendants/petitioners that the plaintiff was all along knowing

about the nature of the documents and acted upon it, makes the

amendment malafide. Later submission is with regard to the

merits of the amendment and much stress has been put on this

aspect of the matter that the original plaintiff admitted the

execution of sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in Partition

Suit No. 46 of 1989. But this contention about correction or Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

falsity of amendment sought cannot be decided at this stage. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal

v. K.K. Modi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 has held in

Paragraphs-18 & 19 as under:

"18. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary have expressed certain opinions and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard the rights of both parties and to subserve the ends of justice. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court.

19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case."

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Andhra Bank Vs. Abn Amro Bank N.V. & Ors., reported in

AIR 2007 SC 2511 has held that while allowing an application

for amendment of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the

question of merit of such amendment. The only question at the

time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be

whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the

real controversy between the parties in the suit. In the present

case, the claim of malafide is only on the ground of knowledge

which has attributed to the plaintiff. However, accepting such

submission tantamount to entering into the consideration of the

merits of the case and this Court would not like to venture into

forbidden territory.

11. There are two more amendments which have been

allowed by the order of the learned trial court. One such

amendment is with regard to sale deed dated 04.01.1993 being a

void document for not obtaining permission of the

Consolidation Authority prior to execution of the sale deed.

Another amendment is with regard to averments with regard to

Collector-cum-District Registrar restraining both sides from

selling the disputed land vide order dated 28.12.1992. Basic

facts relating to these amendments have already been mentioned Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1799 of 2018 dt.14-08-2025

in the plaint and thus these amendments do not introduce any

new case or change the nature of the suit. Moreover, these

amendments have been sought prior to commencement of trial. I

am of the view that all such amendments could be allowed as

may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real

questions in controversy between the parties, since they are not

malafide or vexatious.

12. In the light of discussion made hereinbefore, I do

not find any infirmity or error of jurisdiction while passing of

the order dated 16.07.2018 by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Bhabua

(Kaimur) and the same is hereby affirmed.

13. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous

petition is dismissed.

14. However, it is made clear that observations made

by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of the present

petition and would not cause prejudice in the mind of court in

deciding the Title Suit No. 158 of 2013.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/-

V.K.Pandey
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                08.07.2025
Uploading Date          14.08.2025
Transmission Date       NA