RITA DEVI Vs. RIMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Misc. application has been filed against the order dtd. 28/4/2015, passed by Sub Judge IX, Motihari in Title Suit No. 970 of 2014 by which the Court has allowed amendment petition in a mechanical way which was filed by the respondents/plaintiff.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 970 of 2014 before the trial court seeking a decree for specific performance of contract. Subsequently, the respondent- plaintiff filed an amendment application, which was allowed by the trial court. A copy of the said amendment application has been annexed as Annexure-1, wherein Patna High Court C.Misc. No.821 of 2019 dt.8/1/2026 five proposed amendments (numbered as paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 3 and 4) were sought for in the plaint. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-defendant has no objection to the proposed amendments relating to proposed amendment Nos. 1 and 4. However, serious objections were raised with respect to the amendments proposed in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 3. It is contended that by way of the said amendments, the respondent- plaintiff is virtually seeking to change the nature and character of the suit. In particular, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Partition Suit No. 92 of 2008 is forged and fabricated and liable to be declared null and void. Further, by inserting an amendment after paragraph No. 10(क) of the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the suit property is joint family property of the defendants first set. Learned counsel submits that all the aforesaid proposed amendments have been allowed by the impugned order dtd. 28/4/2015. It is Patna High Court C.Misc. No.821 of 2019 dt.8/1/2026 argued that the original suit being one for specific performance of contract, the amendments sought for and allowed by the impugned order clearly alter the nature of the suit, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that in a suit for specific performance, relief for declaration of a judgment or decree as null and void cannot be claimed. The proper course available to the respondent-plaintiff would be to institute a separate and independent suit for such declaratory reliefs.