IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8227 of 2010 ====================================================== Keshaw Mishra, S/O Late Vishwamohan Mishra, R/O Village Naraipur, P.S. Bagaha District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Haribans Singh, S/O Late Indrasan Singh, R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 2. Rameshwar Singh @ Raghubans Singh, S/O Late Indrasan Singh, R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 3. Mohan Singh, S/O Late Indrasan Singh, R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 4. Nageshwar Singh, S/O Late Indrasan Singh, R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 5. Satyandra Singh, S/O Late Indrasan Singh, R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 6. The State Of Bihar through Collector, West Champaran. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11384 of 2010 ====================================================== Keshav Mishra S/O Late Vishwamohan Mishra R/O Village- Naraipur, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Harbans Singh S/O Late Indrasan Singh R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 2. Rameshwar Singh @ Raghubans Singh S/O Late Indrasan Singh R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 3. Mohan Singh S/O Late Indrasan Singh R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 4. Nageshwar Singh S/O Late Indrasan Singh R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 5. Satyandra Singh S/O Late Indrasan Singh R/O Village- Nadda (Bhairoganj), at present residing at Village Chamwalia, P.S. Sirisia, P.S. Bagaha, Distt-West Champaran. 6. The State Of Bihar Through , Collector West Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.8227 of 2010) Patna High Court CWJC No.8227 of 2010 (6) dt.11-09-2012 2 / 4 2 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi Mr. Madan Mohan, For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. (In CWJC No.11384 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, AC to AAG-10 Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 11-09-2012 Both C.W.J.C. No. 8227 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No.11384 of 2010 are taken up together, as both cases have been filed against orders passed in Title suit no. 87 of 2008. I will take up both the cases one by one. In C.W.J.C.No.11384 of 2010 the prayer is for quashing order dated 18.12.2009 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Bagaha, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce copy of Jamabandi treating the same as the basis of the suit. The petitioner submits that the suit is not yet admitted and no summon has been issued to the defendants. The suit was filed by the petitioner for reliefs of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the respondent nos. 1 to 5 in respect of suit property. The petitioner had mainly relied upon different judgments of this Court in support of his claim. He submits that under Order VII Rule 14(2), he annexed a list of the documents along with the copies of the judgments. He submits that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to produce copy of Jamabandi. Patna High Court CWJC No.8227 of 2010 (6) dt.11-09-2012 3 / 4 3 Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel appearing for the defendants / respondents, submits that the petitioner was required to produce copy of all documents along with plaint and as such the trial court has rightly directed the plaintiff-petitioner to produce the Jamabandi as he has claimed that the Jamabandi is running in favour of his family. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Smt. Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1079. The matter therein involved an election dispute. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 11 described the procedure to be followed while presenting a plaint. The Hon’ble apex Court observed that as per Order IV Rule 1 every suit is to be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court. After a plaint is received, summons is to be issued to the defendants under Order V Rule 1. Rule 2 thereof states that every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint, and if so permitted by a concise statement. Order VII relates to contents of a plaint.' The plaint has to be signed and verified. Order VII Rule 9 requires the plaintiff to annex a list of documents and if the plaint is admitted, shall present as many copies on plain paper of the plaint as there are defendants unless the Court by reason' of the length of the plaint or the number of defendants, or for any other sufficient reason, permits him to present a like number Patna High Court CWJC No.8227 of 2010 (6) dt.11-09-2012 4 / 4 4 of concise statements of the nature of the claims made etc. It appears that the plaint has not been admitted and defendants have not been noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner has already annexed a list of documents. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 directing the plaintiff to produce Jamabandi at pre- admission stage is set aside and C.W.J.C.No.11384 of 2010 is allowed. In C.W.J.C.No.8227 of 2010 the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the same trial court whereby he has refused to amend the plaint on the ground that the plaint has not been admitted. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court refusing to amend the plaint as the same has not been admitted. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition for amending the plaint if so advised, after the plaint is admitted. With the aforesaid observation, these writ applications stand disposed of. Uday/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)