CHANDRIKA CHAUDHARY Vs. HORIL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel, Mr. Chandrakant appearing on behalf of the respondent. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 22.9.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Munsif, Siwan in Title Suit No. 160 of 1985 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid amendment application seeking addition of a relief whereby the plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession to the suit property. The court below by the impugned order allowed the said application recording a finding that by the amendment, nature of the suit is not changed.

(3.) The learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh submitted that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is mala fide as the plaintiff was knowing that they were not in possession of the property when the suit was instituted in the year 1985 but the amendment has been sought for after such a long period when a right has accrued in favour of the defendant and further, that the amendment sought for is barred by law of limitation.