Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Kamal Kishore Prasad – Petitioner
versus
Lal Kumar Rai and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.657 of 2017
Decided on 12.6.2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over suit land – Case is at stage of evidence of plaintiffs – Amendment being sought by petitioner in plaint is with regard to certain factual aspects – Petitioner has failed to show why facts already in existence could not be incorporated in original plaint or by way of amendment at earliest occasion – However, amendment sought to be incorporated would not change nature of suit as alternative prayer has already been made for recovery of possession in case of dispossession during pendency of suit – 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 – If amendment is not allowed, it will lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation – Amendment petition allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by plaintiff/petitioner to contesting defendant/respondent. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge-VIII, Patna in Title Suit No. 56/2001 whereby and whereunder petition dated 14.09.2016 filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the plaintiffs before the learned trial court, who has filed a suit for declaration of title on the suit land described in Schedule II and also for confirmation of possession over the suit land. Further relief has been sought that if the plaintiff is dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, then a decree for recovery of possession of the Schedule II land be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Further relief has been claimed by way of injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, selling, alienating and encumbering the suit land in any way during the pendency of the suit and restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land and maintaining the status quo during the pendency of the suit.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that the family of one Dhuman Rai owned and possessed 50 decimals of land on Plot No.1657, Khata No.434, Tauzi No.5236 in Mauza Mainpura. After the death of Dhuman Rai, his widow Mostt. Sita Devi and their sons Bhagera Rai and Doman Rai for self and as guardians of their minor sons jointly sold 40 decimals out of 50 decimals of land to five persons vide five different sale deeds. The plaintiff purchased 9 ½ decimals land vide sale deed dated 30.03.1971 on payment of consideration amount of Rs.10,800/- from Mostt. Sita Devi, Bhagera Rai and Doman Rai. All the purchasers came into possession of their respective land which they got mutated in their names and started paying rents and obtained rent receipts from the circle office. The petitioner constructed a boundary wall on the eastern side of his land and also constructed a room on north-eastern side of his land. Later on, boundary wall was damaged due to construction of the road on the eastern side of the land of the plaintiff. On 01.09.1988, the petitioner filed a petition for initiation of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 Lalji Prasad, who had been trying to capture the land of the petitioner by collecting the building materials and digging the land and he was also trying to sell the land of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 29.10.1988. The petition of the defendants/respondents filed on 09.12.1988 for drawing a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was rejected vide order dated 16.05.1989. However, the defendant again filed a petition on 23.06.1989 for restoration of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna restored the proceeding. Subsequently, the proceeding was transferred to the Executing Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, who passed the order of status quo and the proceeding ended when the order was passed in favour of the respondents on 09.12.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 56 of 2001 before the learned Sub Judge, Patna. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants/respondents is that the land in question is their ancestral land and after selling of 40 ½ decimals of land by their ancestor, 9 ½ decimals of land remained in their possession and no land has been sold by their ancestor to the petitioner. The petitioner further claimed that despite the injunction order, the defendants/respondents constructed four shops upon the land in question and let out the same on rent. While the examination of witnesses of the plaintiff has been going on, the plaintiff filed a petition dated 14.09.2016 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment in paragraph 5 of the plaint as w
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.
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.....
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 of CPC can be permitted even post-delay if they facilitate effective adjudication and do not cause injustice to the opposing party.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
Amendments to written statements are permissible to clarify defenses without withdrawing admissions, particularly before trial commencement.
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
