Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Prabodh Kumar Tiwary (Adopted) S/o Sahdeo Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari (Adopted) S/o Late Malti Devi – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 436 of 2025
Decided On : 24-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Headnote
(B) Amendment - Courts should approach amendments liberally to ensure justice; however, post-trial amendments may be restricted to maintain procedural integrity and avoid surprises. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
This petition was filed to overturn a ruling rejecting the Petitioner's request for amendment of the plaint related to a Title Partition Suit after judgment was passed. The lower court found the petition was filed without proper incorporation of earlier allowed amendments and failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The judgment confirms that the learned first Appellate Court acted correctly in dismissing the petition for amendment, reiterating that amendments at the appellate stage should not harm the rights previously established by the trial court.
Issues: The central questions were the propriety of allowing amendments at the appellate stage and the correct application of rules regarding amendments in pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: Allowing amendments post-trial is limited to ensure fairness and that no irreversible prejudice is caused to the opposing party, reinforcing that the integrity of trial processes is paramount.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants : R.N. Sahay, Bakshi Vibha
For the Respondents: Shiv Narayan Singh, Pran Pranay
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal procedure under article 227. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against the amendment petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. description of trial procedures and prior rulings. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. conditions under which amendments may be allowed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. rejection of the amendment petition by the court. (Para 13) |
| 6. final order to dismiss the petition. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Narayana Singh along with Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1, who have appeared suo motu.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 19 of 2025 by the learned District Judge-III, Deoghar, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2024, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the prayer regarding correction in the genealogical table to incorporate the name of Kunti Devi, the first wife of Sahdeo Tiwary and the mother of this petitioner in the plaint of Title (Partition) Suit No. 497 of 1997.
3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Title Partition Suit No. 497 of 1997 was instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner for a decree for partition for allotment of entire share to the plaintiff in Schedule-A and half share in Schedule-B and C after getting in carved out through process of court and for appointment of receiver and for cost of suit for which the plaintiff is legally entitled. He further submits that said suit was on contest decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2024 and 09.05.2025 respectively. He also submits that during the proceeding of trial, an amendment petition was filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC which was registered M.C.A. No. 171 of 2024 and after hearing the parties, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the amendment petition vide order dated 19.04.2024. He submits that however inadvertently amendment No. VII was not carried by the petitioner in the plaint and decree has been passed and that was not carried out in the decree. He submits against the said judgment and decree, the defendants/opposite parties herein preferred the Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2024. He further submits that in course of examining the record of the appeal, it was found that amendment No. VII, allowed by the learned Trial Court, has not been incorporated in the plaint and in view of that, the petition has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Rule 18 of the CPC before the learned first Appellate Court and the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same. He submits that inadvertently that has not been incorporated in the plaint and formal amendment was sought to be carried at the appellate stage and in view of that, the learned first Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the said petition. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Dwarika Prasad (D) through LRs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under:
“9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in upholding the order of the Additional District Judge. The Trial Court had rightly allowed the restoration application filed by the Appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. It is well settled that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. This principle has been enunciated by this court in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal1, quoted as follows:
“3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties genera
