LAWS(PVC)-1945-12-51

THAKUR MAHTO Vs. JAGO KUER

Decided On December 06, 1945
THAKUR MAHTO Appellant
V/S
JAGO KUER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court of Patna, dated 13 November 1944, allowing amendment of the plaint by adding some more defendants and by adding also some causes of action arising subsequent to the suit.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiffs instituted the suit originally for setting aside a mortgage bond dated 18 July 1939, said to have been executed by the defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 5. The suit was instituted on 2nd February 1944, and summonses were served on 2 April, 1944. Written statement was filed on 14 July 1944. In between the service of summonses and the filing of the written statement, on 8 April 1944, the defendant 1 executed five sale deeds in favour of the defendants sought to be added by the amendment on the allegations that the defendants amongst themselves had conspired to bring into existence subsequent sale deeds, and therefore leave was prayed for and obtained from the Court for adding these allegations to the plaint and making the vendees parties to the suit.

(3.) The application for amendment was made on 5 August 1944, which was rejected without hearing the parties on the ground that the said application had not been moved. The plaintiffs made the same application again on 6 November 1944, which was heard in presence of the parties on 13 November, and the Court ordered that the amendment should be allowed on condition that the plaintiffs should pay Rs. 32 as costs to the other side. By the same order the plaintiffs were directed to get summonses served on the added defendants, and it appears further that in January 1945, before this Court was moved in February this year, the Court executed (sic-exacted) additional court-fees also from the plaintiffs in respect of the transactions which had been allowed to be added to the plaint by way Of amendment. This Court was moved by the defendants, and a rule was issued by this Court on 16 February 1945 staying proceedings in the Court below.