SEERAT BANO Vs. MD SHAFEQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner who is defendant in Title Suit No. 50/ 2001 which was filed by the opposite party for recovery of possession and injunction etc.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.4.2005 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif 2nd Bhagalpur has allowed the petitioner filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint.

(3.) 3.2003 hence he cannot be allowed to take contradictory stand in the same plaint. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2001 whereas the Yadast of oral gift is dated 4.3.2002 which is during the pendency of the suit due to which neither the said Ekrarnama can be of any legal help to decide his title nor he could be allowed to take the help of such documents and produce evidence with regard thereto in support of his claim. Hence he submits that the impugned order of the learned Court befow is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and is fit to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that mere amendment will not mean allowing the claim of the plaintiff and the entire matter has to be considered at the time of final adjudication.