Patna High Court
Ganga Prasad Mandar vs Maya Shankar Mandar on 10 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1115 of 2023
======================================================
Ganga Prasad Mandar son of Late Ram Bahadur Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Maya Shankar Mandar son of Lal Bahadur Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
2. Surendra Mandar, son of Late Ram Lakhan Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
3. Ashok Mandar, son of Late Ram Lakhan Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
4. Satyendra Mandar, son of Late Ram Lakhan Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
5. Lal Bihari Mandar, son of Late Ram Lakhan Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
6. Raj Kishore Mandar, son of Late Ram Lakhan Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
7. Bhushan Mandar son of Late Awadh Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
8. Ajay Mandar, son of Mahesh Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
9. Bipin Mandar, son of Mahesh Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
10. Lalit Mandar, son of Shivji Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha, Police
Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
11. Santosh Mandar, son of Shivji Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
12. Paritosh Mandar, son of Shivji Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
13. Birendra Mandar, son of Ram Bahadur Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
14. Ranveer Mandar, son of Ram Bahadur Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
15. Gauri Mandar, son of Ram Bahadur Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
16. Roshan Mandar, son of Pramod Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
17. Deepak Mandar, son of Pramod Mandar, Resident of Village-Khangraitha,
Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
18. Sumitra Devi, Wife of Late Pramod Mandar, Resident of Village-
Khangraitha, Police Station-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1115 of 2023 dt.10-04-2025
2/6
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bidhanesh Misra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
22.08.2023
passed by Sub Judge V, Darbhanga in Title Suit No.
329 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge
allowed the petition dated 14.09.2018 filed by the plaintiff
seeking amendments in the plaint.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the defendant 2nd set and respondent no. 1 is the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the Title Suit bearing no. 329 of
2016 seeking declaration of title over Schedule-1(Ga) which is
part of Schedule 1 property of the plaint while further claiming
that defendants have no concern with the same. The plaintiff
also prayed for recovery of possession if the plaintiff was
dispossessed during pendency of the suit and has also sought
correction in the survey entry with regard to the suit land. The
defendants appeared after notice and defendant nos. 2 and 8-14
filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel further submits that defendant categorically
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1115 of 2023 dt.10-04-2025
3/6
stated in the written statement that the claim of the plaintiff on
the basis of Partition Suit No. 80 of 1969 and subsequent
compromise entered into between the parties to that suit does
not bind the defendants as neither defendants not their ancestors
were party to the partition suit. The defendant contested the
claim of the plaintiff on a number of grounds apart from the
aforesaid ground. The defendants also pointed out that the
plaintiffs and others have filed another Partition Suit bearing no.
85 of 1992 before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Darbhanga
which has been pending and in the said partition suit C.S. Khata
No. 77, C.S. Plot No. 260, subject matter of Title Suit No. 329
of 2016 is not the subject matter of the said suit rather C.S.
Khata No. 77, C.S. Plot No. 212 is the subject matter of
Partition Suit No. 85 of 1992 and this goes on to show that
ancestral land of the plaintiffs has not been divided. Learned
counsel further submits that during pendency of the Title Suit, a
petition was filed by the plaintiff on 14.09.2018 seeking
amendment in paragraph 10 of the plaint to the extent that the
plaintiff wanted deletion of the words “..the decree was passed
on the basis of compromise..” and also for deletion of the words
“…and each party partitioned between themselves and there is
no manner of concern between each party…” The plaintiff
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1115 of 2023 dt.10-04-2025
4/6
sought to add the words “..the compromise was not acted upon
and the parties as per convenience and with consent of the
parties came into possession over Old Plot Nos. 355, 260, 359,
456..” This application of the plaintiff for amendment was
allowed and the same is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
trial court has passed the impugned order erroneously and with
material irregularity. The learned trial court completely failed to
take notice of the pleadings and arguments of the parties. The
learned trial court also failed to appreciate that in seeking
amendment in paragraph 10 of the plaint, the very basis of the
claim of the plaintiff over his title was going to change and at
this stage it would cause serious prejudice to the defendant.
Learned counsel further submits that by seeking the amendment
in the plaint, the plaintiff has been trying to withdraw the
admission made earlier in paragraph 10.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 1 vehemently contends that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order and the same does no need any
interference. Learned counsel submits that no admission is
being sought to be withdrawn rather the real dispute of the
parties has been brought forth so that the controversy between
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1115 of 2023 dt.10-04-2025
5/6
the parties is completely adjudicated. Learned counsel further
submits that even the issues have not been framed and the
amendment has been sought prior to the commencement of trial.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and also perused the record.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows the said order
has been passed without giving any reasons for passing the
order. It is a cryptic and non-speaking order. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that an order
bereft of reasons could not be sustained as reasons are the heart
beat of a decision and the impugned order is completely lacking
on these points.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC
4664 has held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that
reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretense of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to
be equated with a valid decision-making process.
10. The decision in Kranti Associates Private Limited
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1115 of 2023 dt.10-04-2025
6/6
(supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stresses upon the
importance of reasoned judicial orders and have discussed
elaborately why reasoning is the soul and heart of the justice.
11. Therefore, without going into the merits of the
rival submission, the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 is set
aside for being devoid of any reasons and learned trial court is
directed to pass a reasoned order afresh on the application of the
plaintiff dated 14.09.2018 within a month from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 17.04.2025 Transmission Date N/A