Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010, are aggrieved of order dated 02.06.2014 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 by which amendments in the plaint have been allowed.
(2.) Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for eviction against the defendants in respect of schedule 'B' properties and for a decree for khas possession to the plaintiffs of the said property. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves absolute owner in possession of the property comprised under Holding No.129 (New) and 155(Old) of Ward No.6. They have pleaded that this property was acquired by the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 02.06.1966 and he came in possession over schedule 'A' property during his life time. After death of their father, the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 became owner of the schedule 'A' properties. During the trial, after the plaintiffs examined one of their witnesses namely, Subash Ranjan Hore as P.W.1, an application seeking the following amendments in the plaint was filed: (a) That, within schedule "A" at page 9 of the plaint for proper identification following boundary may be added butted and bounded as follows:- North :- Vacant Land South :- Lane (Gali) and thereafter big Nala East :- House of Sri Shiv Narayan Singh West :- Road (b) That, in the aforesaid manner the boundary given in schedule "B" of the plaint may kindly be corrected as followsIn the east, the appearing words "Residence of my client" may be replaced by the words "Remaining portion of schedule 'A' and in the North the appearing "Vacant Land" may be corrected as the shop in occupation of tenant Rajeev Roy." (c) That, in the para-1 of the plaint, before the appearing word "Possession" in 1st and 6th line the word "in" may be inserted. (d) That, to avoid confusion and by way of clarification in para 3,6,7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint after the appearing word defendants the word "No.1 & 2" may be added. (e) That, after para-11 a new para as 11(a) may be incorporated as follows:- (f) "That, as apprehended in para-11 of the plaint on the date of filing the suits i.e. on 17.09.2010 the defendant no.2 namely Bhaskar Rajak in collusion with other defendants filed C.P. Case No.1912/2010, on 22.10.2010 against plaintiff no.4 and 8 namely Subhash Ranjan Hore and Sandip Hore and during pendency of the said C.P. Case, it could be disclosed that Late Subodh Ranjan Hore the husband of plaintiff no.7 and Father of plaintiff no.8 who was Karta of the family for being the elder brother of other plaintiffs had filed a C.P. Case No.629/03 against the defendant no.1 and 2 and their brother namely Gyani @ Gyan Rajak under section 323/379/427/447 I.P.C. but after death of said Subodh Ranjan Hore the defendants under fraud and conspiracy got compromised the case with the help of defendant no.3 who declared herself quite falsely the wife of Late Subodh Ranjan Hore, in consequence of which the defendants are presently facing their trial in C.P. Case No.2861/2012 presently pending before the learned court of Sri P.S. Ghosh, J.M.,Dhanbad and accordingly the defendants are wanted in the said case." And for this act, petitioner shall ever pray.
(3.) The aforesaid amendments in the plaint have been permitted by the trial judge holding that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit and these are necessary for a just decision in the suit.;