Rameshwar Prasad vs Mahesh Yadav on 11 April, 2025

Patna High Court

Rameshwar Prasad vs Mahesh Yadav on 11 April, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar Jha

Bench: Arun Kumar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.960 of 2023
     ======================================================
     Rameshwar Prasad Son of Nanhak Yadav Resident of Village- Barky Bahang,
     P.S.- Magadh University, District- Gaya.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus

1.   Mahesh Yadav Son of Nanhak Yadav Resident of Village- Barky Bahang,
     P.S.- Magadh University, District- Gaya.
2.   Smt. Baliya Devi Wife of Rameshwar Prasad Resident of Village- Barky
     Bahang, P.S.- Magadh University, District- Gaya.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
                                    Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
                                    Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                                    Mr. Bishwanath Prasad Mahto, Advocate
                                    Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate
                                    Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :      Mr.Ram Shankar Das, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 11-04-2025

                        Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                       2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

      07.02.2019

passed by learned Munsif-II, Gaya in Title Suit No.

05 of 2004, whereby and whereunder certain amendments

proposed by the plaintiff/petitioner have been allowed and

certain proposed amendments have been disallowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court along with

respondent no. 2 and the petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 05 of

2004 seeking relief for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.960 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025
2/5

of Schedule -A property and further for relief of delivery

possession with respect to Schedule-B property and also for

other reliefs with regard to suit property appertaining to Khata

No. 2, Plot No. 118, area 1.11 acre, Village – Badki, Badni,

Police Station – Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. The suit property

was the purchased property of the father of the petitioner and

respondent no. 1 is the brother of the petitioner who got

separated from his father and brother way back in the year 1976

taking his share in the properties. The wife of the petitioner had

been taking proper care of her father-in-law, the father of the

petitioner executed a deed of gift dated 08.02.1977 with respect

to aforesaid Plot No. 118 in favour of the petitioner and

respondent no. 2, who is wife of the petitioner. On 04.01.2004,

the defendant/respondent no. 1 forcibly took possession of 0.60

acre land of Plot No. 118 claiming that he was having half of the

share in the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the

petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of

the plaint. Rejoinder was filed by the defendant/respondent no.

1 contesting the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner.

4. The learned trial court after hearing the parties partly

allowed the amendment application. The order of rejection of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.960 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025
3/5

certain amendments by the learned trial court has been

challenged before this Court in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is not sustainable and same has been passed

without consideration of facts and circumstances. The petitioner

is an illiterate and rustic villager and due to some

miscommunication and fault of learned counsel for the

plaintiff/petitioner, some wrong facts have been mentioned in

the plaint, apart from certain other facts which were not brought

on record by the petitioner. Unless the facts are brought on

record it could not be decided the real controversy between the

parties. If the amendments which are almost formal in nature

have not allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

Thus, learned counsel submits that the amendments are

necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties

and the same may be allowed and the portion of impugned order

rejecting the proposed amendments needs to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

no. 1 vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the

impugned order and the amendments which are formal in nature

and do not affect the nature of the suit have been allowed and if

any admission is sought to be withdrawn, the same have been
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.960 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025
4/5

allowed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel further

submits that respondent no. 1/ defendant has not challenged the

order considering the fact that the real controversy should be

decided before the learned trial court and the dispute should

come to an end after adjudication. Learned counsel reiterates

that the amendments which have been disallowed, relate to

withdrawal of admission by the plaintiff/petitioner and the

learned trial court rightly rejected the amendments on this point.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and going through the record, especially impugned order I

hardly find any infirmity in the impugned order. The

amendments which have been disallowed apparently relates to

withdrawal of an admission with regard to possession of

defendant/respondent no. 1 over the suit property. As the

plaintiff earlier claimed that the defendant dispossessed them

from 0.60 acre of suit land and consequently relief of recovery

of possession has been sought. Now the proposed amendments

which have been rejected are to the effect that the

defendant/respondent no. 1 never came into possession of the

suit land and plaintiffs are in possession and relief of recovery

of possession has been sought to be deleted. The said

amendments have been rejected by the learned trial court
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.960 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025
5/5

referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ladha

Ram & Co., wherein the Hon’ble Court held that once an

admission is made in respect of certain status, it is not open to

the other party to wriggle out of such a situation by retracting or

withdrawing from the said admission which would be

detrimental to the interest of the other side.

8. In the light of clear position of law, I do not find

any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is affirmed.

9. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

DKS/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          17.04.2025
Transmission Date       NA