KOLE ORAON Vs. LODHA ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C.-I, appearing for the O.P. No. 4, who is Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dtd. 30/9/2023, passed in Original Suit No. 18 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-II, Lohardaga, whereby, Misc. Civil Application No. 75 of 2023, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs dtd. 18/9/2023 under Order-VI, Rule-17 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been allowed by the learned court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs/opposite parties Guha Oraon and others filed Original Title Suit No. 52 of 2016 against the petitioners/defendants, which has been withdrawn and thereafter the said plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 18 of 2017 against Kole Oraon and two others, who are the petitioners herein and the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga for declaration of their right, title interest and possession over the suit land of R.S. Khata No. 65 and 126 of village-Kachmachi, Lohardaga and half share of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 over the suit land of R.S. Khata No. 123. He submits that the petitioners/defendants, after their appearance, filed their written statement on 9/5/2019. He further submits that the amendment petition was filed and objection to that effect has been filed on 21/8/2020, however, the learned court has been pleased to allow the same by the order dtd. 4/3/2021, contained in Annexure-4 on the cost of Rs.500.00. He then submits that thereafter the suit proceeded and the present stage of the suit is at the argument stage and at that stage, another amendment petition was filed under Order-VI, Rule-17 read with Sec. 151 CPC, which has been allowed by the learned court by order dtd. 30/9/2023. He draws the attention of the court to the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs and submits that so many amendments have been sought to be made and that has been allowed by the learned court, which amounts to change the nature of the original suit. He submits that earlier also the amendment was allowed and at the later stage, that petition has been filed and the learned court has further allowed the same, that too in absence of any due diligence and in view of that learned court has wrongly passed the said order. He further submits that there are parameters of allowing the amendment petition and at the belated staged, when the suit is at the stage of argument, such order cannot be passed. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prejudice has been caused to the petitioners/defendants.