BIMAL KARAK Vs. BIDYUT KUMAR LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 22/4/2019 passed in Title Suit No.33 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamshedpur (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby the petition dtd. 16/1/2019 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in page no.1, cause title and in page no.9, in the prayer portion of the plaint was rejected. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 24/7/2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed in the said title suit, whereby the petition dtd. 26/4/2019 filed by the petitioner for review of the order dtd. 22/4/2019 has also been rejected.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner along with one Shanti Rani Laskar (mother of the respondents) purchased a piece of land under Khata No.24, Plot No.1668 a and 1668 b, Ward No.16 J.N.A.C., Mouza-Gagun Nagar, P.S. Sidhgora Jamshedpur from one Smt. Durga Rani Bose. As per the agreement dtd. 27/5/1984, the petitioner came in possession of the western portion of the land measuring an area of 34 feet x 60 feet, whereas the mother of the respondents came in possession of the eastern portion of the land measuring an area of 34 feet x 50 feet and they were continuing in exclusive possession over their respective portion of the land. However, the relationship between them subsequently got strained when the petitioner started construction over his portion of purchased land and the respondents started obstructing him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur on the basis of the report of the Sidhgora Police Station, initiated a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Cr.P.C vide Misc. Case No.811 of 1992 which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C and vide order dtd. 27/9/2006, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum confirmed the physical possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the land in question. It was, however, observed that the parties may approach the court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest with respect to the land in question, as the same was recorded in the name of State of Bihar leased to Tisco in Khatiyan. The said order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum was also confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dtd. 1/3/2007 passed in Cr. Revision No.263 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No.33 of 2008 before Civil Judge (Junior Division)-V, Jamshedpur for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. The said suit proceeded in the learned court below and the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 15/2/2014 whereas the evidence of respondents was closed on 16/12/2017. The petitioner claimed that during pendency of the said suit, the respondents started making construction over the land in question and as such, a petition dtd. 5/5/2016 was filed by the petitioner praying inter alia to restrain the respondents from making any construction over the same, however, the respondents denied the said claim of the petitioner by filing the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner again filed a petition dtd. 20/5/2016 along with police report and requested to appoint a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner at his cost to verify the said fact. However, the learned court below rejected the said petition of the petitioner. As such the petitioner filed a petition dtd. 16/1/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC and prayed for amendment of the plaint to the extent of amending page no.1, cause title in the middle portion as "suit for permanent injunction, recovery and confirmation of possession as well as amendment in page no.9, in the prayer portion of the plaint after completion of paragraph (a) to be added as "for a decree of recovery and confirmation of possession in accordance with the ostensible report and order of the learned S.D.O. which are public documents u/s-74 of the Evidence Act". The learned court below, however, vide order dtd. 22/4/2019 rejected the amendment petition of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order filed review petition before the said court, however, the same was also rejected vide order dtd. 24/7/2019. Hence, the present writ petition.