AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner before this Court is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 137 of 1987. He has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the tender notice for sale as
contained in Annexure-1 and 2 of the plaint and sale of the factory premises of the plaintiffs in pursuance thereof are quite under valued, mala-fide
unconstitutional, and against the provision of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 besides some other relief. The said suit was
dismissed and the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 65 of 1992 which is pending disposal before the Additional District Judge, Patna. The petitioner filed
petition on 08.07.2011 for amendment of plaint which was dismissed on 02.09.2011 by the Fast Track Courts. Then the petitioner filed petition on
23.09.2011 for reviewing of said order which was dismissed on 30.10.2013. The present application has been filed to quash the said order as well as
the order whereunder the court below refused to allow amendment.
Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the record.
The petitioner wants two amendments in the plaint which are recovery of possession with respect to the factory premises and enhancement of
valuation. The plaintiff further wants to add details of factory premises in schedule-1 of the plaint.
On going through the annexures of this writ application, I find that the factory in question stands over the land belonging to Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (in short B.I.A.D.A.) and the land was given to petitioner on lease. The respondent’s defendants are not the owner of the
land and the factory premises. The respondent no.1 (B.S.F.C) had only given loan to the petitioner. The petitioner (plaintiff) has not impleaded the
B.I.A.D.A. as party to the suit which was filed for about 30 years ago. From impugned order, it appears that the BIADA cancelled the lease on
account of non payment of yearly rental of lease by the petitioner and the BSFC sold the property in auction to M/S Data Pharmaceuticals and put the
concerned in possession thereof. The petitioner did not implead the BIADA or M/S Data Pharmaceuticals as party to the suit. The learned Fast Track
Court (Additional District Judge) considering the above facts rejected the amendment petition. It further appear that the petitioner (plaintiff) got his
plaint amended on two occasions as per order dated 27.11.1990 and 22.08.1991 but he did not sought any amendment with respect to recovery of
possession. These facts were within the full knowledge of the petitioner and there was no fresh material for reviewing the said order and the
petitioner’s prayer was rightly rejected.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in AIR 2013 SC page 3301 has observed that :- The power
of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground
for review. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC.
In view jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt
with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review
jurisdiction.
In view of above discussions, I find that the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the amendment petition and refusing
to review the said order. This application being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.