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

Sheikh Mohammad Golam Bari @ Golam Bari

    Civil Revision 91 Of 2005

    Decided On, 30 March 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar


    For the Appearing Parties: G.C. Narayan, Sadat Ali Khan, Advocates.

Judgment Text


(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the sole defendant of Title Suit No. 160 of 1970 which was filed by the sole opposite party, namely, the Board, for a decree of possession with respect to the disputed house which according to the plaintiff was wakf board.

(2.) The defendant petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2004. passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge 8th Patna rejected his petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint by adding some facts in paragraph 9 of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any, amendment in the relief portion and merely wants to bring on record certain facts with respect to the earlier Title Suit No. 37 of 1952 to show that the property was not a Wakf Board.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is merely a ply of the defendant to further delay the disposal of the Title Suit which was filed as far back as in the year 1970, i.e. about 35 years back. He further contends that the facts regarding Title Suit No. 37 of 1952," which defendant wants to bring on record, cannot be considered by this Court as the Judgment and decree in the said suit were not relevant in the present suit and it does not affect the merit of the suit. He further contends that the said matter is very old and due to the law of limitation cannot be considered now. Hence, he submits that the impugned order of the learned Court below is quite legal, justified and proper.

(4.) After considering the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record it is quite apparent that although the suit is of the year, 1970 but the hearing of the suit has not yet started, it further transpires that no relief is sought by the defendant on the basis of the aforesaid judgment and decree in the earlier title suit and the defendant wants to bring the fact of that suit on record of this case merely for the purpose of proper assistance to the Court. It goes without saying that the plaintiff opposite party is at liberty to rebut the said statement of the defendant by way of amendments of plaintiff's pleadings and evidence.

(5.) It is well settled that it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible, i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain circumstances result in miscarriage of justice. After all amendments of pleadings would not amount to decisions, on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. This view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors." reported in 2002 (2) PLJR (SC) 187.

(6.) In the aforesaid circumstance I hereby set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Court below to allow the defendant to amend his written stat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ement as mentioned above and also to give a chance to rebuttal to the plaintiff-opposite party. The learned Court below is also directed to expedite the proceeding of the suit which is already abut 35 years old and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. With the aforesaid directions this civil revision is allowed.