PRABHU MOCHI Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR MAHALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 14/12/2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Latehar in Civil Misc. Application No.14 of 2021 (Original Title Suit no.07 of 2013), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC, seeking amendment in the plaint, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2021, submits that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in disallowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC, undermining the fact that averments with respect to execution of the sale deed in the year 1946 by Lal Sahay Chamar (grandfather of the petitioners) in favour of Baijnath Ganjhu (vendor of the father of the defendants), which is forged and fabricated document obtained fraudulently by the defendatns, was already made in different paragraphs of the plaint. In fact, the plaintiffs came to know about the said fact in a proceeding initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Latehar under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. being Misc. Case no.183 of 2011. Inadvertently, the plaintiffs could not make specific averment with respect to the said sale deed in the plaint as well as the prayer could not be made for declaration of the said sale deed as void. In fact, the said sale deed i.e. Sale Deed no.230 dtd. 11/4/1946 said to have been executed by Lal Sahay Chamar in favour of Baijnath Ganjhu and the subsequent unregistered sale deed allegedly executed by Baijnath Ganjhu on 9/2/1947 in favour of Murlidhar Mahalka @ Murlidhar Seth were fraudulently obtained and the same were forged and fabricated. The petitioners, accordingly, filed an application before the Trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC, which was registered as Misc. Application No.14 of 2021, seeking amendment in the plaint. In fact, the said amendment was necessary so as to decide the real controversy involved in the said suit and the same would not change basic nature of the same.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the contents of the present civil miscellaneous petition.