Sahnu Rautia vs Tindla Devi And Ors

Heard Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-I (Senior Division), Gumla in Title Suit No. 44 of 2003.

Mr. Deo learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 44 of 2003 was instituted on 17.12.2003 for adjudication of right and title of the petitioner and Chamra Rautia. He further submits that during the pendency of the suit, certain area of the land in question was transferred to other persons and construction was going on and in that view of the matter, the petitioner filed a petition dated 20.01.2007 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint, which was rejected by the trial court on 28.01.2008. The petitioner further filed a petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. on 21.02.2015, which was rejected by the trial court on 04.03.2015, which is annexed at Annexure-8 to this writ petition. Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 on the ground that the amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. can be brought forward at any stage of the trial. He further submits that the trial court has erred in saying that earlier rejection has attained finality as the order was not challenged by the petitioner. He further submits that in view of the provision, the amendment sought for by the petitioner was required to be allowed by the trial court.

Per contra, Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order of the trial court and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as it has been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that if the amendment, as sought for, by the petitioner was allowed, the entire nature of the suit was changed and in that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 04.03.2015.

Pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2019, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit, whereby, he has brought on record earlier petition which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. This Court has perused earlier petition filed by the petitioner and present amendment petition, on which, the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 has been passed. In earlier amendment petition dated 20.01.2007, the petitioner tried to challenge certain sale deeds and in present amendment petition dated 21.02.2015 also, the petitioner tried to challenge certain transactions by way of sale deeds. It transpires that amendment sought for by the petitioner by way of earlier petition dated 20.01.2007 and present petition dated 21.02.2015 are similar in nature. The earlier petition rejected vide order dated 28.01.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) has not been challenged by the petitioner, which has attained its finality. Moreover, the petitioner has filed second amendment petition at a very belated stage and nature of amendment was similar, which was challenged by filing earlier amendment petition. While rejecting earlier amendment petition, the trial court rightly came to the finding that during the pendency of the suit if anyone sold the land to anyone, the purchaser will stand in the sue of vendor and it will hit by the principle of doctrine of lis pendence. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-I (Senior Division), Gumla. There is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

Stay, granted earlier by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2015, stands vacated.