UTTAM MAITY Vs. ANJANA MAHATAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties no.1 and service of notice on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties has been dispensed with as they are found to be formal O.Ps.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer has been made for setting aside the order dtd. 3/2/2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-IV, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.162 of 2010 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff/O.P.No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the suit has been allowed by the learned court at the time of final argument of the suit.

(3.) Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner /defendant submits that the Original Suit No.162 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff /O.P.No.1 in the court of learned Sub Judge-I Jamshedpur in seeking declaration of registered sale deed no.3961 dtd. 22/5/2010 was executed by the O.P.No.2 in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.3 as void. He submits that after notice, the defendants and others have appeared and filed their written statement and suit is of the year 2010 and it has proceeded further and reached at the stage of argument and at that stage, the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment with a prayer for recovery of possession be added in the event of plaintiff be dispossessed the petitioner or his representative. He submits that the same is barred by more than 13 years. He further submits that due diligence is not shown in light of proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and in view of that the learned court has erred in allowing the said petition. He relied in the case of Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and Another reported in(2009) 2 SCC 409 and he refers to paragraph no.10 and 11 which are quoted below: