RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. MURARI FRASAD AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 22-8-1986, passed by Shri Vidyuta Prabha Singh, Subordinate Judge, Bhabhua in T. S, No. 1295 of 1970, whereby the court below purported to have rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to the eiftct that the suit stands abated in terms, of Section 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, in spite of the amendment carried out by the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The opposite-parties filed the aforementioned suit inter alia for declaration of his title and other consequential reliefs. The learned court below by an order dated 5th November, 1976 held that the suit has abated. Against the said order the opposite-parties filed a civil revision application in this Hon'ble Court, which was allowed being Civil Revision No. 128 of 1977. The said civil revision application was disposed of by a judgment dated 15-9-1982, whereby and whereunder this Court held as follows :

(3.) The opposite parties purported to be in terms of the said order filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The said amendment was allowed by an order dated 13-9-1982. However, inspite of the leave having been granted to the plaintiff-opposite-parties to amend their pleadings, in terms of Order VI, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff-opposite-parties allegedly failed to amend the plaint within the stipulated period of 15 days. The petitioners, thereafter filed two applications before the learned court below ; one of them was to the effect that even if it be held that the amendment was carried out, still then the suit has abated in terms of Section 4-C of the Act. The petitioners further filed an application to the elfect that as the plaintiffs did not amend the plaint after the leave was granted by the Court therefore within the stipulated period as contemplated under Order VI, Rule 18 of C. P. C., the said amendment should not be given effect to. By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the second application filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, the learned court below does not seem to have considered the first application filed on behalf of the petitioner.