Kailash Pati Mahtha vs Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro, Jharkhand and Ors.

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is the respondent in Title Appeal no. 33 of 2007 preferred by the respondent Divisional Forest Officer and other official of State of Jharkhand. Petitioner succeeded in Title Suit no. 25 of 1996 vide judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2007 passed by learned Court of Sub-Judge-II, Bokaro. Learned court decreed the suit and made a declaration of permanent occupancy raiyati right of the plaintiff in the lands described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint (suit land). Petitioner though being the decree holder had preferred an application seeking amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 , read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before appellate court to bring on record certain facts. That has been declined by the impugned order dated 23 December, 2015 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro (Annexure-8).

It transpires on hearing the counsel for petitioner and respondents as well as on perusal of the impugned order that petitioner sought to incorporate the outcome of certain litigation pursued by his adjoining raiyati challenging the notification dated 24th May, 1958 of Forest Department issued under the proviso of Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Those litigations, according to the petitioner went up to Apex court and have been decided in Civil Appeal nos. 5471/1991 with Civil Appeal nos. 8051/2001; 1463/2002 and 359/2003. Petitioner being the decree holder having successfully prosecuted the title suit for declaration of his permanent occupancy raiyati right, seems to have sought the proposed amendment at the appellate stage which relate to litigation arising out of the same notification of Forest Department by adjoining raiyati. In that case, petitioner could always refer to the judgment rendered by Apex court on the point during the course of the his submission before the appellate court. However, the attempt of the respondent in appeal that is present petitioner to incorporate facts which do not apparently have arisen post institution of his suit have rightly been denied by the learned appellate court.

Counsel for the respondents also do not dispute the proposition of law that the respondent/petitioner herein is always at liberty to refer to any judgments on the subject matter relating to litigation before the appellate court at the time of hearing of the case.

In such circumstances, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order at Annexure-8 passed by Principal District Judge, Bokaro. Moreover, perusal of the impugned order shows that learned court has acted within bound of his jurisdiction and such an amendment was not required to be allowed at the appellate stage keeping into the light the settled principles of law as declared by the Hon''ble Court referred to in the impugned order also.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed with the aforesaid observations.