MADHO SINGH Vs. SHIV PRASAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 14.7.2011 (P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class II in C.S. No.1-A/2010 (old No.3-A/92), whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs No.1 to 4 under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for consequential amendment in the plaint has been allowed.

(2.) The petitioners' counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record by referring the copy of the judgment dated 10.2.2007 passed by Additional Judge of Begamganj to the Court of Illrd Additional District Judge, Begamganj in Regular Civil Appeal No.9-A/2000 (Annexure P-8), whereby in the first inning of the litigation between the parties, after setting aside the trial Court, Civil Judge, Class I, Begamganj dated 14.8.2000 (Annexure P-7), passed in C.O.S. No.3-A/2002 remanded back the matter with some direction to decide afresh said that in view of terms of remand the respondents-plaintiffs did not have any authority to amend the plaint. They could only adduce the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioners. In continuation he fairly submits that subsequent to such remand on filing the amendment application by the present petitioners for amended in the written statement in the light of documents submitted on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 plaintiffs, the same was allowed and the written statement was amended accordingly. He further submits that in any case the respondents No. 1 to 4 did not have any authority to propose the consequential amendment in response of aforesaid amendment of the petitioners. In alternate he said that the proposed amendment of the respondents No.1 to 4, is not of consequential nature. Infact the plaintiffs want to introduce some new pleadings with * Decision reproduced in toto. respect of the issue which has already been decided between the parties in above mentioned earlier litigation and, therefore, the impugned amendment of the respondents is neither bona fide nor necessary to adjudicate the present suit and in such premises, by saying that the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the amendment of the respondents No.1 to 4 and prayed to set aside the same by allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record.