BANO KHATOON Vs. MD. IDRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present C.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 6/1/2022 (Annexure-4 to the present C.M.P) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hazaribag in Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1995 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 12 of 2020 has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1995 in the court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribag seeking eviction of the defendants including the petitioner, who was defendant no. 2 in the said suit, from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The defendants appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement denying relationship of landlord and tenant between them and asserted their possession over the suit land on the basis of valid title. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsif, Hazaribag vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/5/2009. The respondent no. 1, thereafter, preferred an appeal being Eviction Title Appeal No. 04 of 2009. The appellate court i.e. the court of District Judge-II, Hazaribag, vide order dtd. 9/7/2015, allowed the respondent no. 1 to make amendment in paragraph-17 of the plaint as prayed in his amendment application dtd. 4/8/2014 which is as follows:

(3.) Thereafter, the appellate court remanded the matter to the original court for adjudication of title between the parties on payment of ad- valorem court fee by the appellant/plaintiff/respondent no.1. The plaintiff thereafter filed an amendment application before the original court on 29/1/2020 which was rejected on technical ground. However, subsequently, the plaintiff filed another application on 13/2/2020 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hazaribag under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint. The petitioner and other defendants filed reply to the said application opposing the proposed amendment, however the learned trial court, vide impugned order dtd. 6/1/2022, allowed the said application filed by the plaintiff/the respondent no.1.