AKHOURI SUJIT SINHA Vs. CHHABI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 17.03.2017 passed in Title Suit No.75 of 2013 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been preferred, by which the plaintiff no.1 has been allowed to be represented through plaintiff No.3 on the ground of unsoundness of mind.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment, sought for, is not proper because the nature of the suit will change, the suit is for cancellation of sale deed, which has been executed by the plaintiff No.1 and, therefore, if the plaintiff No.1 would be allowed to be represented through plaintiff No.3, the suit would be said to be decided at this stage only and, therefore, the impugned order allowing the amendment, is not proper and hence the same may be set aside. He further submits that the trial court has not appreciated the fact that the plaintiff No.1 has put his signature in the written statement and, therefore, it cannot be said that he is of mind of unsoundness.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order, the factual aspect involved in the writ petition is that a suit, for cancellation of sale deed No.3229 dated 26.08.2013, has been filed by the plaintiffs, being Title Suit No.75 of 2013. It is evident from the plaint of the suit that the ground for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed is that the plaintiff No.1, who has executed the sale deed, is a mind of unsoundness and suffering from psychiatric decease.