PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. RAJGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notices have been validly served upon all the opposite parties, except opposite party no. 1, 5, 6 and 8, others have chosen not to appear either in person or through advocate. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, learned advocate for the opposite parties nos. 1, 5, 6 & 8.

(2.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dtd. 30/3/2016 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IX, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 149 of 2011 by which the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of plaint has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sub-Judge was not justified in rejecting the amendment petition filed by the petitioner especially when the trial had not commenced. He contended that the petitioner had filed title suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profit. However, after filing the suit, the opposite parties sold some of the disputed lands to the third parties and, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application on 15 th July 2013 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for amendment of the plaint as well as to add the vendee as defendants in the suit as the suit is for recovery of possession and mesne profit also, but the court below erroneously rejected the prayer on the ground that in case the petitioner would succeed in the suit, his interest will be fully protected as transfer during pendency of the suit would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.