Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Sumitra Devi, wife of Sheo Narain Singh, Daughter of Late Hari Ram and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Anil Pandit, son of Shree Chando Pandit and Ors. - Opp. Parties
C.M.P. No.1173 of 2023
Decided On : 22-06-2024
[AMENDMENT] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [Order VI Rule 17 CPC] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for amendments to pleadings. The court emphasized that amendments should not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action. The court interpreted the rule to mean that amendments should be for the purpose of bringing in facts that were not previously included and should not prejudice the other party. The rejection of the amendment was influenced by the court's view that the proposed changes would alter the nature of the suit and potentially prejudice the defendants.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to amend the plaint in Original Suit No. 109 of 2018, which involved a dispute over land ownership and possession. The amendment was aimed at filling in unfilled portions of the plaint and correcting names and details related to the land. The trial court rejected the amendment application, stating it would change the nature of the suit and prejudice the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the proposed amendments would indeed change the nature of the suit and introduce new issues that could prejudice the defendants. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the original pleadings and the necessity of not allowing amendments that could lead to injustice or confusion.
Issues: Whether the proposed amendments to the plaint would change the nature of the suit and whether they could be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that amendments under Order VI Rule 17 should not alter the fundamental nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action. The court also highlighted that amendments should be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and should not cause prejudice to the other party.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's rejection of the amendment application.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Munsif-VI, Koderma in Original Suit No.235 of 2020 (arising out of Original Suit No.109 of 2018) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected disallowing the prayer to make amendment in the plaint.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the instant petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Survey Record of Right the lands of Khata No.8 of village Tetariadih, Police Station Koderma, P.S. No.63, present P.S. Domchanch, old District Hazaribag, present District Koderma was owned and possessed by Doman Singh and his brother Bishun Singh, both sons of Chaman Singh, who constituted a joint family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law and both held joint title and possession thereon.
4. Bishun Singh had a daughter namely, Dashari Devi, who was married during the life time of Bishun Singh and settled in her Sasural permanently, where she died in due course without having any concern with her naihar. On the lands of Khata No.8 of Mouza Tetariadih Bishun Singh and Doman Singh were living together and were cultivating the land jointly. Subsequently Bishun Singh died in jointness with Doman Singh and after the death of Bishun Singh, Doman Singh became the absolute owner of lands of Khata No. 8 of Mouza Tetariadih.
5. Doman Singh died in due course, leaving behind his seven sons, namely Jitan Singh, Nunu Singh, Sohar Singh, Mangar Singh, Devi Singh, Chhotu Singh and Jhari Singh. Out of seven sons, Jitan Singh had no issue and he died heirless and remaining six sons had become the joint owners of the lands.
6. In course of time the six brothers partitioned the lands of khata no.8 of mouza Tetariadih. They also held owned and possessed lands of khata no. 178, which was entered in the name of Bishun Singh and others in the khatiyan and thus heirs of Doman Singh were jointly cultivating the lands of both khatas. Later on sons of Doman Singh partitioned the lands orally and after that with other lands and they became separate in possession, cultivation and residence.
7. Nunu Singh, son of Doman Singh was allotted portion of lands in khata no.8 including lands of plot no. 401,403 and 404 of village Tetariadih and was put in separate possession after family arrangement and partition and was exercising all acts of possession thereon during his life time separately. Ultimately Nunu Singh died in course leaving behind him, his only son Bulaki Singh, who stepped into the shoes of his father and came in possession of lands of aforesaid plots of khata no.8 of mouza Tetariadth and acquired exclusive right, title, interest and possession thereon.
8. Bulaki Singh remained in possession of the lands of the aforesaid plots and continued to possess the same during his life time. Bulaki Singh died leaving behind him, his one son Ashok Singh and Ashok Singh being legal representative of his deceased father Bulaki Singh, became the absolute owner of the lands of khata no.8, plot no. 401, 403 and 404 of village Tetariadth of the land of his share and possession and continued to exercise all acts of possession thereon.
9. The said Ashok Singh, felt need of money in April 1988 and so decided to sell portion of land of plot no. 403, for which he contacted with plaintiff no.1, Smt. Sumitra Devi and offered her to purchase 5 decimals of land of plot no. 403, khata no.8 of mouza Tetariadih. Aafter receiving the full consideration money, Ashok Singh executed and registered a sale deed, vide sale deed no. 3941, dated 30.04.1988, whereby he sold and transferred 5 decimals out of 17 decimal of lands of Plot no. 403, khata no.8 of mouza Tetariadih to Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of Shree Sheo Narain Singh, daughter of Hari Ram and put he
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action, and must be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case wit....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action that would prej....
[The court established that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the fundamental nature of the suit an....
Amendments under Civil Procedure Code should be allowed to resolve real questions in controversy, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause undue hardship to the other party.
[The court established that amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the party demonstrates due diligence and the nature ....
Amendment in plaint can be allowed at any stage of suit even before pronouncement of Judgment – Question of requirement of filing written statement cannot be assessed by court at this stage.
A party seeking to amend pleadings post-trial must prove due diligence; mere claims of counsel negligence do not satisfy this requirement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
