IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.389 of 2006 1. MOST.LALMATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH (DEFENDANT NO.11)………………….(DEFENDANT IIND SET). 2. UMA SINGH @ UMA SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH (DEFENDANT NO.12)..(DEFENDANT IIND SET). BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ENGLISH TOLE JHAJHAWAN, P.O. ENGLISH, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. (DEFENDANT IIND SET BEFORE THE COURT BELOW). …………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS Versus 1(a). PAVITRA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LAL BAHADUR RAM. 1(b). PARAS RAM. 1(c). PRAMOD RAM. 1(d). BINOD RAM. 1(e). BRIJESH RAM. 1(f). AKHILESH RAM. SONS OF LATE LAL BAHADUR RAM 1(g).SUNAINA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE LAL BAHADUR RAM. 1(h). ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF LAXMAN RAM. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. ENGLISH, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. (PLAINTIFF NO.1). 2. MAHESH RAM , SON OF SARVAJEET RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-UGRASEN CHHAPAR, P.O. LANGARPURA, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN(PLAINTIFF NO.2). 3. RAJ NANDAN YADAV, SON OF BALI RAJ YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUMERPUR, P.O. BISHUNPURA, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN (DEFENDANT NO.1) (DEFENDANT NO.IST SET). 4. RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL, SON OF SHIV SHANKAR PD. JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUTHANI BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S. GUTHNI, DISTRICT-SIWAN (DEFENDANT NO.2) (DEFENDANT IST SET). …………………………………………….OPP. SECOND PARTY. 5. SATYA PRAKASH BARNWAL (DEFENDANT NO.3). 6. ANIL BARNWAL (DEFENDANT NO.4). 7. RABINDRA BARNWAL (DEFENDANT NO.5) ALL SONS OF LATE RAME SHANKAR PRASAD. 8. OM PRAKASH BARNWAL, SON OF LATE HARI SHANKAR PRASAD (DEFENDANT NO.6). 2 ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAJHOLI ROAD, MAIRWA, P.O. MAIRWA, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 9. SURESH SINHA (DEFENDANT NO.7 Kh) 10. VIJAY SINHA (DEFENDANT NO.7 G). BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE VYAS LAL SINHA. 11. SMT. RANI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE VYAS LAL SINHA (DEFENDANT NO.7 Gh) ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHOLI ROAD MAIRWA, P.O. AND P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 12. KRISHNA SINGH KUSWAHA, SON OF SIGHASHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SRI NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN (DEFENDANT NO.8). 13. MOSSMT. SARSWATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE KAILASH PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9). 14. JAI PRAKASH PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9k) 15. VED PRAKASH PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9kh) 16. SRI NIWAS PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9G). 17. RAM NIWAS PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9Gh) 18. RAM KUMAR PANDEY (DEFENDANT NO.9Aug) ALL ARE SON OF LATE KAILASH PANDEY. 19. SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI DEVI (DEFENDANT NO.9 Ch). 20. RAJ KUMARI DEVI (DEFENDANT NO.9Chh). 21. DAYA KUMARI DEVI (DEFENDANT NO.9J). ALL ARE DAUGHTER OF LATE KAILASH PANDEY, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATHIYA, P.O. AND P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. (DEFENDANT IIND SET). ……………………………………….OPPOSITE IIIRD PARTY. 22. MUSMAT NAGESHWARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ALGU AHIR (DEFENDANT NO.13). 23. RAMAYAN CHAUDHARI, SON OF LATE ALGU CHAUDHARI (DEFENDANT NO.14) BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LANGARPURA, P.O. LANGARPURA, P.S. MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. (DEFENDANT IIIRD SET)…………….OPP.FOURTH PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate. For O.P. No.1(a) to 1(h) : Mr. Jitenra Kumar Srivasatava, Advocate. For O.P. Nos.14 to 22 : Mr. Md. Abu Haidar and Ms. Jahan Ara, Advocates. ------------ 3 14. 12.1.2010. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.7.2005 passed by Sub Judge-VII, Siwan, in Title Suit No.23/99, whereby the petitioners’ prayer for amendment of written statement had been rejected by the court concerned. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submitted that the amendment, as is evident from the amendment petition (Annexure-2), was merely formal in nature and in no way is going to affect the prejudice the plaintiff. The allegations have been made against the defendant nos.13 and 14 in the proposed amendment. Learned counsel further submitted that the court has wide power and unfettered discretion to allow amendment of pleadings. Specially the amendment of written statement adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in case of amendment of plaint. Therefore, inconsistent defences can be raised in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in case of the plaint. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, reported in (2006)6 Supreme Court Cases 498. In the aforesaid decision, it 4 has been held that the Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It has also been held that the Courts have been conferred with wide power and unfettered discretion to allow amendment of pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. In case of written statement, it has been held, that even inconsistent pleadings can be raised by the defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in case of plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the court below, though, had discussed the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, but had not recorded any specific finding as to why he had rejected the prayer of proposed amendment in the written statement. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1(a) to 1(h) submitted that though the proposed amendment may not be prejudiced the case of the plaintiff but it has been brought at belated stage only with a view to delay the proceedings and, thus, court concerned had rightly rejected the prayer. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the proposed amendments would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. 5 In that view of the matter, respectfully relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the court below has committed serious jurisdictional error while not allowing the proposed amendment in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners. Thus, the order dated 19.7.2005 is set aside and the proposed amendments, sought vide Annexrure-2 by the defendant - petitioners, are allowed. However, since a petition for such amendment has been filed after much delay, as has been pointed out by the plaintiff-opposite parties as well as opposite party nos.14 to 21, this order shall be subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) to be deposited by the petitioners in favour of the plaintiff-opposite parties within 30 days from today. Since the title suit concerned is of the year 1999 and parties agree that there should be expeditious disposal of the suit, I also direct the court concerned to take every steps for expeditious disposal of the Title Suit No.23/99. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, allowed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)