CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Surendra Prasad @ Bhola Prasad vs Vijayandra Prasad and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 February 2009 · Citation: (2009) 2 PLJR 780

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Ranjan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 906 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 336 words

Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 184 of 1998, whereby he has allowed the petition of the defendant opposite party No. 1 seeking certain amendments in the written statement.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment was allowed in the year 2008 after about seven years of filing of the written statement, and, as such, there was no reason to allow the same, inasmuch as by the aforesaid amendment the defendant opposite party is trying to change his defence.

3.

The defendant-opposite party No. 1 by filing the amendment petition has sought amendment in few paragraphs of the written statement, wherein some dates and some words have been sought to be substituted and inserted. The amendment petition aforesaid has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the present civil revision application.

4.

The defendant-opposite party has averred that due to mistake and inadvertence there were some errors in the written statement, which are sought to be rectified.

5.

The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the proposed amendment in the written statement by observing in the impugned order that the defendant concerned is not withdrawing any admission and the proposed amendment, in no way, seriously prejudices the plaintiff. Further, even if any contrary stand is sought to be taken in the written statement, the same could be introduced by amending it if it is necessary to determine the controversy in between the parties. It has also observed that the trial is yet to commence. The trial court has allowed the amendment petition subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/- to be deposited in the manner directed in the impugned order.

6.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the order impugned dated 21.2.2008, which warrants interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In the result, the civil revision application is dismissed.