- (1.) The petitioner by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of approprite writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned SubJudge-I,Dumka in Title Suit No.56 of 2007 whereby the learned court below rejected the application dated 9.7.2008 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint by deleting valuation of the suit property, mentioned in page-2, as Rs.6,26,200/ and to replace the same with Rs.820/-and further in para-26 of the plaint valuation of the suit, mentioned in the first line, as Rs.6,26,000/- be replaced with Rs. 620/- .The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said order whereby the court below allowed the petition dated 3.5.2007 filed by the respondents/ defendants No. 1,2 & 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC directing to the plaintiff to pay advalorem court fee.
(2.) The case of the petitioner/ plaintiff in short is that the suit property originally belonged to the petitioner's/plaintiff's grand-father namely Bhola Nath Sah, who died in the year 1980 leaving behind his widow, six daughters, including defendant no 2 Veena Devi and two sons namely Ram Pd. Sah and Gopal Sah. Thereafter, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant also died, just after the death of Bhola Nath Sah, leaving behind the plaintiff and proforma defendant. The defendant 2 nd party, who happens to be one of the daughters of Bhola Nath Sah, got the suit land mutated in her name on the strength of deed of gift which was executed in favour of Radha Madhav Singh by Bhola Nath Sah and in fact, the gift was made in favour of Rameshwar Pd.Singh, distantly related to Bhola Nath Sah for construction of his house/ residence but Rameshwar Pd Sah/Singh never constructed any house nor exercised any act of possession. Defendant 2 nd party, who is claiming herself to be widow of Rameshwar Pd.Singh, has transferred the suit land in favourof defendant's no 1 and 2 vide sale deeds no. 951 and 952 of the year 2005 without any consideration and these have been created only to deprive the plaintiff and cosharer from the suit land and accordingly the reliefs have been claimed in the suit. Further the value of the alleged sale deeds have inadvertently been mentioned being valuation of the suit land, whereas the plaintiff is interested in the suit land to the extent of his share and valuation is inadvertently mentioned which is to be amended.
(3.) In the said Title Suit No. 56 of 2007, defendants appeared and filed a written statement .According to plaintiff, issue have not been framed so far and suit has not commenced as yet.;