AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
The plaintiff/petitioner is before this Court against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 49 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the petition, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint, has been rejected.
The plaintiff filed the suit mainly for the following reliefs:
a. That on adjudication gift deed No. 3177/75 dated 01.09.1975 executed by Lurhu Uraon in favour of defendant no. 1 be declared null, void, inoperative, sham and fraudulent deed and not binding on the plaintiff and proforma defendants.
b. The permission order passed in Permission Case No. 17/75-76 and mutation order passed in Mutation Case No. 08R 27/78-79 be declared illegal, sham and void.
The plaintiff claims the suit land on the basis of the joint ancestral property, whereas the defendants claim it on the basis of registered deed of gift by the father of defendant no. 1 in his favour.
The petitioner filed the petition on 21.09.2024 to incorporate the following amendments:
“Para-9(a). That order dated 16.08.1975 in permission case by the S.D.O., Gumla is not binding to the plaintiff as the plaintiff was neither the party in Permission Cas No. 17/1975-76 nor the plaintiff’s father Hundra Oraon or Mangra Oraon have knowledge about said Permission Cas No. 17/1975-76 was collusive and false person entered in case and never plaintiff’s father engaged any lawyer in that case who accepts as claim by defendants and as such, is not binding to the plaintiff”.
The learned Trial Court rejected the petition inter alia on the ground that new facts were attempted to be introduced after 16 years of the filing of the plaint. Earlier also, the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff on 16.08.2022 was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2024.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no new fact is being introduced as amendment is clarificatory in nature with regard to the relief.
Having heard the counsel on the point of admission, the instant amendment petition appears to be in response to the pleadings in the written statement at para-10 wherein it has been pleaded that that the father of the plaintiff namely Hundra Oraon had contested the permission case initially by appearing in the said case.
Whether the father of the Petitioner appeared in the said permission case or not, is a question of fact that can be determined only on the basis of evidence. The crux of the pleadings which the petitioner seeks to introduce lies in the realm of evidence that his ancestor had not participated in the said permission case. This is not a question of fact and the parties will be at liberty to lead evidence before the Trial Court whether they were a party in the permission case or not. Since it is a trite law that it is the fact that is to be pleaded, and not evidence and therefore proposed amendment has been rightly rejected.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The instant civil misc. petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.