w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Murarai Prasad v/s Indu Devi


Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301TN1994PTC028160

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1995PTC068088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. PRASAD AND CO LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1999PLC090325

Company & Directors' Information:- INDU PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U92112OR1984PTC001387

Company & Directors' Information:- H PRASAD & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011797

    C.R. 1569 of 2004

    Decided On, 18 January 2008

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN

    For the Appearing Parties: --------



Judgment Text

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiff petitioners challenging order dated 2/9/2004, by which the learned munsif, Sherghati, Gaya, rejected the petition filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No. 30 of 1999.

(3.) THE aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff petitioners for the relief that registered sale deed No. 5906 dated 17-9-1990 be declared to be void, illegal, without consideration, sham and collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for restoration of their possession by evicting defendant No. 1.

(4.) IT appears that the defendants have filed their written statement contesting the suit, whereafter the issues were framed and the depositions of plaintiff-witnesses are going on and during that period a petition for amendment of the plaint has been filed by the plaintiffs on 8-12-2003. By the said proposed amendments, the plaintiffs want to add some statements at the end of paragraph No. 12 of the plaint and also want to add one more sale-deed bearing No. 5907 to the already mentioned sale-deed No. 5906 in paragraph No. 10 and in relief No. 1 of the plaint and consequently to substitute the words "an" and "a" by the words "two" in paragraphs No. 8 and 10 of the plaint. By the said amendment, the plaintiffs also want to add two more reliefs bearing" 1a" and" 1b" to the already existing reliefs and also want to raise the valuation of the suit from Rs. 14,000. 00 to Rs. 28,000. 00. A further relief is sought that from paragraph 16, the words "ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 1864/-" be penned through and in its place words "fixed court fee of Rs. 750/-" be substituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the full and final adjudication of the suit.

(5.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant opposite parties vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners and submits that amendments sought are quite mala fide and change the entire nature of the suit and have also been sought at the belated stage when twelve witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(6.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the depositions of the plaintiff-witnesses are continuing and the defendants have not started examining their witnesses. It also transpired that the proposed amendments in the relief portion are merely consequential to the reliefs already sought by the plaintiffs in their plaint and for that purpose the amendments in other paragraphs of the plaint are required, except the amendment sought with respect to the Court fees. So far the proposed amendment with respect to the court fee is concerned, the relief in the plaint was for declaring the sale deed in question to be illegal and void, but the said relief has not been deleted rather another sale-deed has been added due to which the plaintiffs themselves have prayed for enhancing the valuation of the suit from Rs. 14,000. 00 to rs. 28,000. 00. In the said circumstances, there can no occasion for amending the plaint with respect to the Court fee i. e. changing the ad valorem Court fee to fixed court fee.

(7.) THE learned Court below has passed the impugned order without considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without appreciating the special provision of law and hence the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and this Civil Revision is allowed in part. As all the amendments sought by the plaintiff-petitioners, except the changing of Court fee from ad valorem Court fee to fixed Court fee, which is rejected, is hereby allowed. The learned Court below is directed to fix ad valorem Court fee on the basis of the valuation of both sale deeds Nds. 5906 and 5907, which are sought to be declared illegal and void by amending the plaint. However, the defendants will be at liberty to file their additional written statement in connection with the amended pleadings. Revision partly allowed.

--- *** ---

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiff petitioners challenging order dated 2/9/2004, by which the learned munsif, Sherghati, Gaya, rejected the petition filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No. 30 of 1999.

(3.) THE aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff petitioners for the relief that registered sale deed No. 5906 dated 17-9-1990 be declared to be void, illegal, without consideration, sham and collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for restoration of their possession by evicting defendant No. 1.

(4.) IT appears that the defendants have filed their written statement contesting the suit, whereafter the issues were framed and the depositions of plaintiff-witnesses are going on and during that period a petition for amendment of the plaint has been filed by the plaintiffs on 8-12-2003. By the said proposed amendments, the plaintiffs want to add some statements at the end of paragraph No. 12 of the plaint and also want to add one more sale-deed bearing No. 5907 to the already mentioned sale-deed No. 5906 in paragraph No. 10 and in relief No. 1 of the plaint and consequently to substitute the words "an" and "a" by the words "two" in paragraphs No. 8 and 10 of the plaint. By the said amendment, the plaintiffs also want to add two more reliefs bearing" 1a" and" 1b" to the already existing reliefs and also want to raise the valuation of the suit from Rs. 14,000. 00 to Rs. 28,000. 00. A further relief is sought that from paragraph 16, the words "ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 1864/-" be penned through and in its place words "fixed court fee of Rs. 750/-" be substituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the full and final adjudication of the suit.

(5.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant opposite parties vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners and submits that amendments sought are quite mala fide and change the entire nature of the suit and have also been sought at the belated stage when twelve witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(6.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the depositions of the plaintiff-witnesses are continuing and the defendants have not started examining their witnesses. It also transpired that the proposed amendments in the relief portion are merely consequential to the reliefs already sought by the plaintiffs in their plaint and for that purpose the amendments in other paragraphs of the plaint are required, except the amendment sought with respect to the Court fees. So far the proposed amendment with respect to the court fee is concerned, the relief in the plaint was for declaring the sale deed in question to be illegal and void, but the said relief has not been deleted rather another sale-deed has been added due to which the plaintiffs themselves have prayed for enhancing the valuation of the suit from Rs. 14,000. 00 to rs. 28,000. 00. In the said circumstances, there can no occasion for amending the plaint with respect to the Court fee i. e. changing the ad valorem Court fee to fixed court fee.

(7.) THE lea

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rned Court below has passed the impugned order without considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without appreciating the special provision of law and hence the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and this Civil Revision is allowed in part. As all the amendments sought by the plaintiff-petitioners, except the changing of Court fee from ad valorem Court fee to fixed Court fee, which is rejected, is hereby allowed. The learned Court below is directed to fix ad valorem Court fee on the basis of the valuation of both sale deeds Nds. 5906 and 5907, which are sought to be declared illegal and void by amending the plaint. However, the defendants will be at liberty to file their additional written statement in connection with the amended pleadings. Revision partly allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-06-2020 Jayanta Prasad Banik, Assam Versus STATE of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Raghuvir Prasad Kalicharan Kaithwar, (Since deceased, through His LRs. & Others Versus Hridainarain Rampakhan Pande High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-06-2020 Pravin Kishor Prasad Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-05-2020 Savitri Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 Sreeja Prasad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 Ram Prasad Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-05-2020 Inder Singh Versus Savitri Devi High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Versus State of A.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
10-04-2020 Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Dr. Nirmala Devi, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Assitant Professor Versus Chandrakanta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-03-2020 Jyothi Prasad Versus K.V. Prakasan & Another High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-02-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Ashes Kiran Prasad High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-02-2020 Jagdish Prasad Vijay Versus Niti Aaayog, Erstwhile, Planning Commission Through The Dy. Chairman, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Versus The State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Mathura Prasad Tripathi Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
14-02-2020 Woodland Manufacturers Limited Versus Sankar Prasad Garga & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-02-2020 Syed Rezaul Karim Versus Propeitor, Indu G. P. Gas Servicd/ Distributor & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-02-2020 Matawar Prasad Versus District Judge Shravasti & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-02-2020 Raj Kumar Prasad & Others Versus Som Datt Medical Centre & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajender Prasad Aggarwal & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-02-2020 Ram Prasad Versus Commissioner & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Manju Devi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 A. Sakunthala Devi Versus The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Govind Prasad Kejriwal Versus State of Bihar & Another Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Vidya Devi & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Chandeshwar Saw Versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Shakuntala Devi Jan Kalyan Samiti Through Secy. & Others Versus State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-01-2020 Kirpal Singh & Others Versus Kamla Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 Ramnarayan Versus & Another Geeta Prasad & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-01-2020 M/s. C.C.L. Products (India) Ltd., Rep., by its Executive Chairman, Challarajendra Prasad & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-01-2020 Manokamini Devi Versus Ashok Kumar High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 Nanakram & Another Versus Jamuna Prasad High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-01-2020 Sant Prasad Seth Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-01-2020 Indu Bai & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 K.N. Prasad Versus P.R. Gigi & Another High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Sumitra Devi (Female) Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2020 Neelam Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal Versus Dr. Anil Kumar Narang High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Shunti Devi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
16-01-2020 Prita Prasad & Another Versus Md. Khalil & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-01-2020 Guriya Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-01-2020 Bhola Prasad Shukla & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
14-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Satya Devi & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through its General Manager, Pratosh R. Lotlikar Versus Prasad U. Parab & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box