IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence for amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the onus on parties seeking amendments to satisfy the court of due diligence.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 98 of 1991 by the learned Court of Sub Judge-XI, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 28.10.2017 filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment in plaint has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 98 of 1991 for partition of the suit land as well as declaration of gift deed as void, inoperative and not binding upon the petitioners. The defendants/respondents appeared in the suit and filed their written statement denying the claim of the petitioners made in the plaint and on the basis of pleading of both the parties, the issues were framed. The parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove their case and the case was proceeding for argument. The plaintiffs/petitioners while preparing for argument found that due to typographical mistake certain error has been committed with respect to area as well as with regard to number of the plot of the suit land then the plaintiffs filed amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. which was dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that the proposed amendment is formal in nature which will not change the nature of the suit. Further he has submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that if the proposed amendment is not allowed, it will occasioned multiplicity of litigation and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by the proposed amendment the petitioners want to withdraw their admission which will change the nature of the suit at the belated stage. He has further submitted that due diligence has not been shown by the petitioners and the petitioners have not given any explanation of the delay in filing amendment petition at the stage of argument in an old suit of year 1991.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, it appears that suit is of year 1991 and the case is fixed for argument. The trial Court observed that the plaintiffs want to change in the schedule which is subject matter of partition and also want to change its area. It is also observed that there was sufficient time to the plaintiffs to brought the amendment if required but bringing of amendment at the stage of final argument without stating any reason cannot be allowed and the amendment petition is a misuse of process of law and has been filed with mala-fide. The proposed amendment will change the total area of suit land and also its Khata and Plot number, on these grounds the trial Court rejected the amendment application vide the impugned order which is legal, requires no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and Others, (2017) 14 SCC 120 in paragraphs no. 11 and 12 held:

“11. We have gone through the amendment application carefully where we do not find any explanation whatsoever for this towering delay. We would expect some explanation, atleast regarding the delay since the delay was very substantial. The whole amendment application, when carefully scanned, does not show any explanation whatsoever. This negligent complacency on the part of the plaintiffs would not permit them to amend the plaint, more particularly when the claim has, apparently, become barred by time.

12. It is quite true that this Court in a number of decisions, has allowed by way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time. However, for that there had to be a valid basis made out in the application and first of all there had to be bona fide on the part of the