JAGDEO RISHIDEO Vs. TULSI SHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 4/6/2018 passed by learned Munsif, Madhepura, in Title Suit No.105 of 1997, by which the application dtd. 13/4/2018 filed by the petitioners/original defendant 1st party under Order VI, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of this case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Title Suit No.105 of 1997 in the Court of learned Munsif, Madhepura, for declaration of their title over the suit land, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the properties as detailed in Schedule-B of the plaint belonged to the predecessors of the original defendant 3rd party and they settled the said land through a registered Kabuliat in favour of the ancestors of original defendant 2nd set, who sold Scheduled-A of the plaint to the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed. In the said suit, written statement was filed by the petitioners and denied the entire averments made in the plaint on various grounds. It has also been alleged in the written statement that Lalji Sah was nearer and dearer to Kiro Sah and Hiro Sah, son of Kapuchand Sah and they had taken the suit land in settlement in the name of Lalji Sah. It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that another Title Suit No. 179 of 2004 was going on in the Court of learned 1st Sub-ordinate Judge, Madhepura, between the parties litigating under the same title and there also the issue was as to whether the settlement had been taken by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah or Lalji Sah. During the course of hearing of Title Suit No. 179 of 2004, the plaintiffs also came to know that the settlement was not taken in the name of Lalji Sah by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah. Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah had taken loan from one Bhagli Usha, who filed a Money Suit No. 49 of 1932 against said persons for recovery of her debt. The suit was decreed and execution case was filed by decree holder. During the pendency of the execution case, the judgment debtor paid the decreetal amount by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah and accordingly, the execution case was dismissed after full satisfaction. According to the petitioners, all these facts were came as surprise and therefore, the petitioner/original defendants made further inquiries and upon realizing that under a wrong impression they made certain statement in the written statement, they filed an amendment petition in the written statement, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not withdraw the admission made in the written statement rather by the proposed amendment they made clarification with regard to the statement made in the written statement and the amendment in the written statement should not be viewed at par with the amendment in the plaint.