- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned Subordinate JudgeI, Jamtara in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006 dated 24th February, 2009, whereby, the amendment application, preferred by the original Plaintiffs/judgment creditors/application in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004 has been allowed and against this allowing of amendment by the trial court, present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioners/objectors in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004 (application of the present Petitioners as objector is recorded as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006).
(2.) Having heard learned Counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present Respondents are the original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Title Suit No. 21 of 2002 before learned Subordinate JudgeI, Jamtara. (ii) It appears that the aforesaid title suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2003. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the original Plaintiffs have instituted Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004. (iv) The present Petitioners are objectors in the execution case and have filed their objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the objection raised by the Petitioners is recorded as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006. (v) It further appears from the facts of the case that the original Plaintiffs or judgment creditors have filed rejoinder in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition. Paragraph 12 of the said rejoinder reads as under: 12. That on day before the date of marriage Dhuru Hansdaalong with his friends and relations went to village Dumdumi and brought Margha Hembram along with his father to his house and solemnized the marriage of Margho Hembram with his daughter Fulo Hasda in Gharjamai form in presence of the villagers through a public deliberate Act. (vi) It further appears that thereafter amendment application was preferred by the original Plaintiffs/judgment creditors, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition. Paragraph 5 of the amendment application reads as under: 5. That if Your Honour peruse 2nd line of para 10 of the original plaint bearing Title Suit No. 21 of 2002 of Your Honour's file it will clear that the typist has typed Dhuru Hansda which was corrected as Mansingh Hansda. Thus, it appears that there are some error in paragraph 12, which is a reply given by the original Plaintiffs in an application, preferred by the objectors and this amendment application is to the effect that instead of name Dhuru Hansda, it should be now read as Mansingh Hansda. (vii) It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the aforesaid change in the name affects the right of the objectors mainly for the reason that Mansingh Hansda had one son, namely, Dhuru Hansda and one daughter, namely, Phulo Hansda. It has been stated in paragraph 12 that at the time of marriage of Phulo Hansda, her brother i.e. Dhuru Hansda had attended the marriage, whereas, as per amendment, at the time of marriage of Phulo Hansda, Dhuru Hansda had never attended the marriage. This is the main objection, looking to the facts of the present case. (viii) The aforesaid contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the amendment, which is sought, as stated hereinabove, will not affect the basic nature of the reply given by the original Plaintiffs who attended the marriage of Phulo Hansda that hardly matters much. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the reply that son of Mansingh Hansda, who is Dhuru Hansda, had attended the marriage of his sister Phulo Hansda and by way of amendment, it is stated that daughter's marriage i.e. Phulo Hansda' s marriage was attended by father himself i.e. Mansingh Hansda. Thus, looking to aforesaid two paragraphs namely paragraph 12 of the reply and paragraph 5 of the amendment application, it appears that rightly the trial court has allowed the amendment, which will not cause any prejudice to the present Petitioners, who have filed their objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006. (ix) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued out the case even on merits that how the custom of "Gharjamai" will affect the right of the Plaintiffs. Be as it may. This contention is left open to be decided by the trial court i.e. about the existence of custom and the affect of the custom and such other points which may be raised by the objectors during the hearing of the Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004 with Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2006. Looking to the order passed by the trial court, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. No error has been committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment application, preferred by the original Plaintiffs/judgment creditors/application in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2004.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;