IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint – While deciding applications for amendments Courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should not permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendment.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-1st, Bagaha, West Champaran in Partition Suit No. 100 of 2008 whereby the learned trial Court has disallowed some of the amendments filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed the Partition Suit No. 100 of 2008 for partition of the suit property being full sister of deceased Dashrath Kewat. On 04.02.2010, Respondents no. 3 and 4 filed their written statement and contested the suit and claimed that the disputed land came in their possession since 1939 and 1945 without any hindrance. It is stated in their written statement that in Khatiyan the suit land is in the name of Jhagaru Kewat who died leaving behind his only son Bandhu Kewat who also died leaving behind his only widow Danpatia Devi and daughter Dhanrajia Devi. Dhanpatia Devi vide gift deeds dated 13.02.1939 and 14.09.1945 gifted her property to her Nati (Mishri Mahto) and given possession to him. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are sons of Mishri Mahto.

4. The plaintiff/petitioner on 15.02.2016 filed an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC after framing of issue and when plaintiff’s evidence started which was objected by the defendants. The proposed amendment are for addition of (i) para 10 K, (ii) para 10 Kha in the plaint, (iii) correction in para 1 to substitute Late Nisha Kewat in place of Late Jhagaru Kewat and also (iv) to add in prayer portion 15 K-1 i.e. in view of aforesaid fact declare the alleged registered gift deeds dated 13.02.1939 and 14.09.1945 as forged and fabricated. The Court below allowed the amendment no. 1 and 3 with cost of Rs. 3,000/- considering that the same were formal and explanatory in nature. However, the proposed amendments no. 2 and 4 were rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had got knowledge from the written statement of the defendants filed on 04.02.2010 that Dhanpatiya Devi had gifted the property received from Jhagru Kewat vide registered gift deed dated 13.02.1939 and 14.09.1945 by registered gift deed to her grandson (Naati) Mishri Mahto and thereafter Mishri Mahto came into the possession of the said properties. The plaintiff despite the knowledge of the said facts filed the said amendment after six years which is barred by limitation under Section 59 of the Limitation Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gift deeds dated 13.02.1939 and 14.09.1945 are forged documents as there was no one in the joint family as Dhanpatiya Devi and no limitation will be applicable for declaring forged and fabricated document as void. He has submitted that the rules of procedural law are handmaid to the administration of justice and the Court must give the liberal interpretation with respect to due diligence so that the Court can determine the real question in controversy between the parties.

6. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram reported in AIR 1978 SC 484 and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Shambhu Nath Seth vs. Madan Lal reported in AIR 1976 Allahabad 220 (Lucknow Bench). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram (supra) observed as under;—

“Provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for th