PANNA DEVI Vs. HARENDRA SHAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Nagendra Rai appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the respondents. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging part of the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-3, Gopalganj in title suit No. 127 of 1990 whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the plaint in paragraph 3.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in paragraph-2 and 3(ka) of the plaint, he has categorically stated that after partition, the northern portion of plot Nos. 785 and 786 was allotted in favour of Upendra Lal and he was in possession of the same but by mistake, in paragraph 3, this northern portion has not been typed and, therefore, the amendment is necessary. According to the learned counsel, it is not withdrawing the admission rather it is the explanation and amendment was filed for removal of the confusion.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the amendment has been filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit and that the amendment is mala fide one. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no explanation as to why the amendment was not sought for earlier and the same has been filed at the time of argument of the case by the parties which were likely to be concluded. The learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon : (Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Usman Habib Dhuka & Ors., 2013 2 PLJR(SC) 356).