DEB NILAM DEVI Vs. SATENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, passed by the 1st District Judge, Chatra, dated 15th March, 2012 in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008, whereby, the application, given by the petitioner (original plaintiff in Title Suit No. 27 of 1999 and respondent in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008) for amendment in the plaint of Title Suit No. 27 of 1999, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff in Title Suit No. 27 of 1999 and respondent in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008) has submitted that an application was given by the original plaintiff dated 27th February, 2012 in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008 for amendment in the plaint of Title Suit No. 27 of 1999, especially at paragraph no.12 of the plaint to the extent that instead of "11th December, 1995", it should now be corrected as "11st July, 1995". This amendment has not been accepted by the lower appellate court.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this amendment will not prejudice the original defendant in Title Suit No. 27 of 1999 or the appellant in Title Appeal No. 2o f 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact the petitioner is claiming title over the suit property and had instituted Title Suit No. 27 of 1999, which was decreed on 14th December, 2007 and thereafter, the original defendant has preferred Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008, which is pending before the learned lower appellate court and in the said pending Title Appeal, an application has been preferred by the original plaintiff in Title Suit or the respondent in Title Appeal for amendment in the plaint of Title Suit No. 27 of 1999, mainly for the reasons that the defendant is also claiming title over the suit property, on the basis of the alleged gift deed of the year, 1989 and in paragraph no.12 of the plaint, it has been stated that the original plaintiff came to know for the first time on 11th December, 1995 about the so called gift deed, but, there is an error in narration of these facts and, thus, instead of 11th December, 1995, it should have been 11th July, 1995, because on 11th July, 1995 an agreement was entered into between the original plaintiff and the original defendant and in that agreement, the original defendant has accepted the title of the original plaintiff over the suit property. Thus, the application for amendment was given, so that there may not be any factually wrong narration in the plaint and to avoid any misconception in the mind of the original defendant. This application has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, without appreciating the fact that no prejudice is going to be caused to the original defendant of Title Suit No. 27 of 1999 or appellant of Title Appeal No. 2 of 2008 and hence, the impugned order4 deserved to be quashed and set aside.