- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge -I, Chatra in a Title Suit No. 21 of 1999 (Annexure -3 to the memo of the present petition) whereby an amendment application preferred by the present petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 to be read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment in his plaint, has been dismissed.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: - (i) that present petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 21 of 1999. Amendment application in plaint, was preferred by original plaintiff and it was rejected. Twice such an attempt was made and both applications were dismissed. These two orders one is dated 27th of September, 2005 (Annexure -3) as well as another dated 6th June, 2008 (Annexure -4) have been challenged. (ii) that some third party has instituted Title Suit No. 21 of 1997 wherein the present petitioner is original defendant and that suit was decided on 30th of July, 2003 and the suit was dismissed. Against this judgment and order, Title Appeal bearing No. 40 of 2004 was preferred by that third party which was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 30th of April, 2005. Thus, third party's Title Suit bearing No. 21 of 1997 as well as Title Suit Appeal No. 40 of 2004 both was dismissed. (iii) from the facts of the case, as argued by both the counsel, that both the title suits namely, the one which is filed by the present petitioner bearing Title Suit No. 21 of 1999 and another which was filed by third party bearing Title Suit No. 21 of 1997, were pertaining to different properties. Thus, for two different properties, two different suits were filed. (iv) from the facts of the case that the present petitioner (original plaintiff) has filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule, 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 6th of September, 2005 which was dismissed by the trial court on 27th of September, 2005. The said order is at Annexure -3 to the memo of the present petition. No appeal was preferred at the relevant time. Looking to this order and facts of the case, it appears that no error has been committee by trial court, in dismissing the same. Both the properties are different viz. one which is suit and one which is referred in amendment application. (v) that thereafter, again, the very same petitioner (original plaintiff) filed another amendment application on 18th of November, 2005 which was dismissed on 6th of June, 2008, which is at Annexure -4 to the memo to the present petition. It appears that for the very same ground another amendment application has been preferred, which is not permissible in the eye of law. (vi) that from the nature of the amendment, as per the application preferred by the present petitioner, there is no need of granting the same, looking to the property involved in the Title Suit No. 21 of 1997 and looking to the property involved in Title Suit No. 21 of 1999. They are altogether different properties. Earlier, the Title Suit No. 21 of 1997 was filed by the third party and was decided on 30th of July, 2003. It appears that the present petitioner (original plaintiff of Title Suit No. 21 of 1999) wants to rely upon the same decision which is given in Title Suit No. 21 of 1997. For relying upon any judgment of any court, there is no need for amendment in the plaint. No error has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the amendment application which was preferred second time by the present petitioner. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. In view of the aforesaid decision, both the Interlocutory Applications bearing I.A. No. 2713 of 2008 and I.A. No. 3441 of 2008 stands disposed of.;