SUNIL MAHTO Vs. PARWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -petitioners assail the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Munsif, Samastipur in title suit No. 90 of 1996 whereby the prayer for amendment in the plaint has been allowed by the court below in part, i.e., amendment No. 1 seeking impleadment of Nathuni Mahto as defendant. Prayer for other amendments questioning the validity of the sale -deed dated 29.4.1971 by which the transfer of the part of the disputed land was made, however, has been refused. The plaintiff -petitioners have assailed the said order on the ground that after opposite party No. 1 appeared in the suit he filed his written statement asserting that several other persons who are in possession of the suit lands have been deliberately omitted from being made party in the suit and in that connection they also referred to the sale -deed dated 29.4.1971. Later the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 applied for their intervention and their intervention was accepted on the ground that they are purchasers of the part of the suit land by virtue of sale -deed dated 29.4.1971. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff -petitioners learnt about the existence of the aforesaid sale -deed dated 29.4.1971 and further the fact that on its basis title is further claimed over part of the disputed land by defendant Nos. 4 to 7 necessity to amend the plaint arose. The court below having considered the prayer for amendment allowed the same in part and refused the amendment Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the same are belated.

(2.) DURING the hearing of the petition learned counsel for the plaintiff -petitioners have taken me to the impugned order and has submitted that no sooner defendant Nos. 4 to 7 asserted their title on the part of the disputed land on the basis of the sale -deed dated 29.4.1971 steps for amendment of the plaint was taken and it is wholly incorrect to submit on behalf of the opposite party that the amendment sought for is belated. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff - petitioners has also relied upon two cases, i.e., the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin vs. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin and others (1981 S.C.,485) and the case of Sudhir Kumar Verma vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Sah & another [2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 577]. Counsel for the opposite party, however, has submitted with reference to amendment Nos. 2 to 4 that the same are not only belated but are also barred by limitation and if this court allows those amendments to be incorporated in the plaint it will tentamount to condoning the delay occasioned in filing the time barred suit. To my mind these submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the amendment Nos. 2 to 4 are time barred and not in accordance with law is misconceived. There is no limitation provided for seeking amendment. It is permissible to make amendment at any stage of the suit provided the same is germane to the cause of action. In the instant case as found above the occasion to challenge the validity of the sale -deed dated 29.4.1971 only arose after the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 appeared in the suit as intervenors and began to question the title of the plaintiff in regard to the part of the lands in question on the basis of the aforesaid sale -deed dated 29.4.1971. In view of the aforesaid development, the plaintiff -petitioners had no option but to challenge the validity of the sale -deed dated 29.4.1971 and in that view of the matter amendment of the plaint including the amendment Nos. 2 to 4 are required to be allowed. I, therefore, allow the same by setting - aside the order dated 17.4.2001 in part but without cost and direct that amendment Nos. 2 to 4 be also incorporated in the plaint with lilerty to the defendants to file additional written statement.