Bhikhari Singh and ors. Vs. Rup Singh Bhumij and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......that the plaintiff's were neverdispossessed during the pendency of the suit, rather it is the defendants-petitioners who were in continuous possession for the last 40 years and, therefore, the amendment could not have been allowed.3. the question whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the defendants have been corning in possession of the property for the last 40 years, is the question which can be decided in the suit and it has got no concern with the relief of amendment sought for. merely because the amendment petition has been allowed, it does not mean that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. in my opinion, the claim for recovery of possession in a suit for declaration of title, neither changes the nature of.....

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed a suit for declaration of title and during the pendency of the suit, they filed an amendment petition seeking further relief for recovery of possession on the allegation that during the pendency of the suit they were dispossessed. The said amendment petition was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the plaintiff's were neverdispossessed during the pendency of the suit, rather it is the defendants-petitioners who were in continuous possession for the last 40 years and, therefore, the amendment could not have been allowed.

3. The question whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the defendants have been corning in possession of the property for the last 40 years, is the question which can be decided in the suit and it has got no concern with the relief of amendment sought for. Merely because the amendment petition has been allowed, it does not mean that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. In my opinion, the claim for recovery of possession in a suit for declaration of title, neither changes the nature of the suit nor in any way prejudices the case of the defendants-petitioners inasmuch as the defendants are entitled to file additional written statement and take all defences that may be available to them by reason of amendment in the plaint.

4. For the aforesaid reason I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revision application is dismissed.