Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Yovraj Sinha and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Ram Lakhan Yadav and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1533 of 2016
Decided on 22.12.2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment in plaint – Amendment in relief portion of title suit for adding reliefs for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – After remand suit cannot be treated as one freshly instituted – However, purpose of allowing amendment is for determination of real question in controversy – Prayer for amendment is to be allowed if amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of controversy between parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – But, amendments should not result in injustice to other side – Amendment sought by plaintiffs/respondents is with regard to declaration of title and confirmation of possession – If there is any question of limitation, at this stage, it would be a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by lower court – Trial is yet to commence since issues are yet to be framed – Order passed by lower court allowing amendment petition is quite in order and other side should be adequately compensated in terms of money – Impugned order affirmed but subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by plaintiffs to defendants – Petition dismissed. (Paras 23 to 27, 30, 31 and 32)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res judicata – Doctrine of res judicata belongs to domain of procedure – Its purpose is to give finality to litigation – Procedural laws are handmaid and not the mistress in administration of justice – They are intended to facilitate and not to obstruct course of substantive justice – A procedural prescription acts as a lubricant and not a resistant in administration of justice – Object prescribing procedure is to advance cause of justice and not to shut doors and justice for parties at the very threshold. (Para 29)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
The petitioners have preferred the instant petition against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the learned Munsif, Daudnagar, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 115 of 1987 whereby the learned Munsif allowed the amendment petition dated 12.08.2016 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for adding the relief of declaration of title and confirmation of possession in relief portion of the plaint.
2. From the records, it appears that Case No. 1741 of 1981 corresponding to Trial No. 99/1994 for a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of certain lands before the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad who passed an order on 19.04.1984 declaring the possession of the defendants/petitioners and restraining the plaintiffs/respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of defendants/petitioners till decision otherwise by a competent court. Against the order dated 19.04.1984, the plaintiffs/respondents preferred Criminal Revision No.41 of 1984/15 of 1986 which was rejected by order dated 23.05.1987 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents filed Title Suit No. 115/1987 against these orders before the court of learned Munsif, Aurangabad.
3. The case of the original plaintiff in the Title Suit was that his father died during his minority and his entire land was made Bakast without any auction sale and the same was settled to Girija Prasad and Smt. Rumini Devi by Ex-landlord and they were granted rent receipts. The plaintiff further claimed that after he attained majority, he raised dispute questioning settlement and entered into an agreement with the settlees in the year 1949 and since then he has been coming in possession of the suit land.
4. The defendants/petitioners filed their written statement denying the right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2002 and 22.11.2002 holding that no relief for declaration of title and confirmation of possession had been sought and also on the ground that the plaintiff failed to produce the copy of orders under challenge.
5. Against the dismissal of suit, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 43 of 2002/05 of 2005 before the learned District Judge, Aurangabad and during pendency of the said appeal, the original plaintiff died on 26.10.2004 and the names of his legal representatives-the present plaintiffs/respondents were substituted.
6. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs/respondents filed a petition on 07.04.2012 for amendment of relief portion by adding the words “the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit property and acquired valid title thereon and defendant has no right, title in the suit property” after the word decree in relief portion, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2012/18.05.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Aurangabad. This rejection order dated 17.05.2012 was challenged by the plaintiffs/respondents by filing CWJC No. 12447/2012 which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.08.2013 passed by this Court. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 11.12.2013, the appellate court remanded the title suit for deciding it afresh to the learned lower court after framing of issues.
7. Thereafter, on 12.08.2016, the plaintiffs/respondents filed a petition before the learned trial court for amendment in relief portion of suit for adding reliefs for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, which was objected by defendants/petitioners by filing rejoinder dated 19.08.2016 to the said petition. The learned Munsif, Aurangabad vide order dated 09.09.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 115/1987 allowed the amendment petition dated 19.08.2016, which has been impugned in the present petition.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendants/petitioners that the learned lower court failed to appreciate that the amendment seeking incorporation of relief of declaration of t
(1) Amendment in plaint – Prayer for amendment is to be allowed if amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of controversy between parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be permitted even post-delay if they facilitate effective adjudication and do not cause injustice to the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings are not permissible after trial commencement if they seek to re-agitate issues barred by res judicata.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.....
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
