BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH Vs. TARUN KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Perused the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Munger in Title Suit No.14 of 1999 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this writ application the learned counsel submitted that he is challenging only one part of the amendment detailed in Clause (x) of the proposed amendment by which a new paragraph i.e. paragraph 10A is sought to be added in the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit was filed by the father of the plaintiffs namely Ratneshwar Prasad Singh @ Ratan Kumar only against defendant challenging the sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant. He died. After his death the present respondents have been substituted as plaintiffs in the suit. The present plaintiffs by filing amendment application prayed for amendment for adding paragraph 10A to the effect that Ratneshwar Prasad Singh had no right, title to transfer any part of undivided residential house by sale deed dated 01.11.1996 and the defendants have not acquired any right, title even possession by alleged purchase and they have no right to joint possession with the plaintiff over the alleged purchased land. According to the learned counsel, this amendment sought for cannot be permitted in view of the provision as contained in Order 22, Rule 4 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court, (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 155.