Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13320 of 2010 ====================================================== Bibi Nazma Khanam W/O Ansar Khan R/O Vill.- Bastawara, P.S.- Kantisinghi, Distt.- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Md.Zafar Imam S/O Nasiruddin R/O Vill.- Fekrahi, P.S.- Nauhatta, Distt.- Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar 1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 30-08-2012 The writ petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 21.5.2010, passed by the Munsif, Saharsa in Civil Case no.33 of 1989 by which the court has rejected amendment petition filed by the petitioner for adding one more paragraph in the main plaint of the civil suit. Petitioner’s father Abdul Hamid Khan and uncle Abdul Majid Khan had filed Title Suit No. 33 of 1989 in which Md Jafar imam and others were contesting defendants. They stated in the plaint that they had land located at village Mohanpur, PS No. 40, situated under Nauhatta Police station, District Saharsa having Khata no. 86, Khesra no.192, area 4 Bighas, 4 Khatas and 8 Dhoors. Abdul Hamid Khan and Abdul Majid Khan sold some portion of the land to Aainul Nisha, aunt of Md Zaffar Imam, the sole respondent. Plaintiffs’s case is that in fact they had not executed any sale deed in the name of Aainul Nisha and it was Patna High Court CWJC No.13320 of 2010 (6) dt.30-08-2012 2 / 2 2 the respondent who managed to prepare a forged and fabricated sale deed. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed amendment petition [STATUTE] tain facts as well as the gynecological table of the family. They state that the amendments are formal and would not change the nature of the suit. From perusal of the order of the trial court itself that the amendment would not have any impact on the merits of the case nor it will change the very nature of the suit. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21.5.2010, passed by the Munsif, Saharsa is set aside and the triad court is directed to permit the amendment sought in amendment petition dated 4.2.2010, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, in the plaint. Defendant is allowed four weeks further time to file additional statement, if any. Plaintiffs/petitioners would complete adducing evidence within further six weeks. The trial court would dispose of the matter expeditiously. Shashi./- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 151

Statute Text:
Section 151 of the Indian Penal Code. Knowingly joining or continuing in any assembly of five or more Persons after it has been commanded to disperse. Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.