Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2014 in Title Suit No. 05 of 1996 whereby, application dated 05.09.2013 under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint has been allowed, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioners are defendant nos. 1 to 3 in Title Suit No. 05 of 1996. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the Revenue Officers have no right or authority to cancel or reverse order of mutation and demand opened in usual course and that orders passed by Circle Officer, Tandwa and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra are illegal, void and not maintainable in law. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that Baldev Pandey and Bhagirath Pandey received ⅓rd and ⅔rd shares respectively in the land and properties of Govind Ram Pandey. In the year, 1985 Baldeo Pandey executed a registered deed dated 11.04.1985 for sale of 5 acres and 451/2 decimal land in khata no. 42, 72/3 decimal in khata no. 266 and 58 decimal land in khata no. 328, total area about 6 acres 11 decimals for a sum of Rs. 7,000/in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs came in possession over the said land which is Schedule A land. On the application of the plaintiffs, Circle Officer, Tandwa allowed mutation in their name vide order dated 22.11.1990 in Mutation Case No. 520 of 1990-91. It was further pleaded that Draupadi Devi-defendant no. 1 had also filed an application for mutation in her name asserting that she and her husband were living in the house of Baldev Pandey as ghar jamai and they were serving Baldev Pandey in his old age. It was claimed that Baldev Pandey executed a Deed of Gift in her favour however, the application for mutation was dismissed against which defendant no. 1 filed appeal in the court of Land Reform Deputy Collector, Chatra where she claimed right over the land by inheritance. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded before the Circle Officer. On remand, the Circle Officer instituted Case No. 236 of 1985-86 in which ignoring the earlier order for mutation in the name of plaintiffs, ordered mutation in the name of defendant no. 1 for half share. During the pendency of the title suit, as noticed above the application dated 05.09.2013 under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was filed which has been allowed vide order dated 07.02.2014.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.;