ANIRUDH PRASAD SINGH Vs. DISTRICT BOARD BEGUSARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (the District Board, Begusarai), opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (functionaries of the State Government), and opposite party Nos. 5 to 8. The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 22 -9 -2000, passed by the Munsif -I Court, Begusarai, in Title Suit No. 112 of 1988 (Sri Anirudha Prasad Singh v. The District Board, Begusarai and others), whereby amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff (petitioner) has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that it is not a bona fide application.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated against the present petitioner for removal of encroachment by him on the Government land which was part of a public road. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had earlier preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3568 of 1987 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by dated 12 -11 -1987 (Annexure -R/I to the counter -affidavit of Opp. party Nos. 1 and 2, the District Board), whereby the District Board was directed to ascertain the alleged encroachment by taking measurement of the land in question and it was open to the petitioner to engage a survey -knowing person, to be done in the presence of the both the sides. It appears from the letter bearing Memo No. 1582, dated 24 -12 -1987 (Annexure -R/II) that in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the District Board had informed the petitioner that measurement of the land shall be done on 27 -12 -1987, and the petitioner was called upon to be personally present with the option to engage his own Amin. It appears that measurement was done and the report is dated 28 -12 -1987 (Annexure -R/ll) with the sketch map -showing the portion encroached by the petitioner. This was followed by the communication bearing Memo No. 51, dated 24 -2 -1988 (Annexure -R/II/III) to the petitioner calling upon him to remove the encroachment within a period of one week, failing which the District Board shall remove the same at the cost of the petitioner. It appears from the counter -affidavit of the District Board that the encroachment was removed by demolishing the petitioner's house.

(3.) PURSUANT to this order, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, whereby seeking damages against opposite party Nos. 2, 3 arid 4 personally. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the amendment sought for is inconsistent with the framing of the suit, will change the nature of the suit, and is not a bona fide application. Hence, the present revision application.