ABDUL SAMAD Vs. SHUKDEO MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 23/10/2019 passed by the learned Munsif 2nd Siwan in Title Suit No. 182 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif 2nd, Siwan rejected the amendment petition dtd. 11/6/2019 filed by the plaintiff holding that it will change the nature of the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Title Suit No. 182 of 2016 seeking declaration of title over the suit property apart from permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants who are respondents in the present case and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a petition dtd. 11/6/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code') for making amendment in the plaint on the ground of subsequent event. The plaintiff has sought amendment for bringing on record the act of the defendants in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and sought relief for recovery of possession and also sought change in the boundary. Learned counsel further submits that by the said amendment there will be no change in the nature of the suit but the learned trial court, under some misconception of law, has held that by way of this amendment, nature of the suit would change. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Anr., reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559 : AIR 2002 SC 3369 in support of the contention that if the subsequent events of declaration of title and recovery of possession are incorporated in the suit for permanent injunction the nature of suit would not change. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 : AIR 2006 SC 1647 on the point that the merits of the proposed amendment should not be gone into at the stage of allowing the amendment. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is at the initial stage as only issues have been framed and the parties have been directed to lead their evidence. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Prasad Vs. Most. Pana Devi & Ors., reported in 2016 (2) PLJR 413 and submits that at initial stage amendment could be liberally allowed. Thus, learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by passing a non-speaking and cryptic order without consideration of the facts as mentioned in the amendment petition.