Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1427
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ
JAGDISHKUMAR HARCHANDANI (DEAD THR. LRS.) & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
ZAFAR AHMED & ORS. – Respondent
SLP(C) No.-024264-024264 - 2016
Petitioner's Advocate: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
Respondent's Advocate: LAMBAT AND ASSOCIATES
The amendment to a plaint in a partition suit is permissible, and the question of limitation can be adjudicated by the Trial Court based on evidence.
Headnote:The petition arises from a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirming the Trial Court's order to allow an amendment to a plaint in a partition suit. The plaintiffs sought to declare a sale deed as invalid and the amendment was contested as time barred. The High Court upheld the amendment, asserting that the issue of limitation is a question for the Trial Court. Ultimately, while the plaintiffs can challenge the sale deed, the defendants retain the right to contest its timeliness upon presentation of evidence. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case centers around an appeal regarding the amendment of a plaint in a partition suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the plaintiffs sought to declare certain sale deeds as invalid through amendments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the high court affirmed the trial court's decision on allowing amendments despite objections. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. the trial court retains discretion to address the issue of limitation related to the amendment. (Para 13 , 16) |
| 5. the final decision reaffirms the procedural rights of defendants regarding limitation. (Para 19 , 20) |
O R D E R
1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 15-2-2016 in Writ SignaPturee Nott Veirifitedion No.5175/2014 by which the High Court rejected the Petition Digitally signed by V DI aS teH :A f2L 0 2Ai5N .0Al2N .1D 1ed by the petitioners – herein and thereby affirmed the order
18:39:22 IST Reason:
passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 66 in Special Civil Suit No.422/2009 dated 12-8-2014 instituted in the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur.
2. The petitioners before us are the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. However, it is the petitioner No.5 (original defendant No.6) who is contesting this litigation.
3. It appears that the original plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs in the Special Civil Suit, referred to above:-
(13) That the plaintiff relies on the documents filed as per the list and craves leaves to file more documents at the appropriate stage.
PRAYER :- It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree of partition of the suit property among the original owners whose names and the names of the legal heirs of the deceased have been mentioned in the plaint and be pleased to allot 1/51th share in favour of the deceased Reyaz Ahmad S/o Abdul Ghani (died on 12/11/1996)
(2) Be further pleased to pass a decree of partition and separate possession among the legal heirs of deceased Reyaz Ahmad S/o Abdul Ghani and be pleased to allot 42/1200% share to the plaintiff in the share of his father Reyaz Ahmao S/o Abdul Ghani (3) Be further pleased to pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and be ordered to be placed in possession of his respective share.
(4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems should be granted.
(5) Cost of the suit be saddled on the defendants.”
4. Later in point of time, i.e., sometime in 2012 the plaintiffs sought an amendment to the plaint by filing application (Exhibit
66) before the Trial Court and prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(3)(a) Se further pleased to pass a decree declaring that the sale deed dated 29/091998 I 12/10/2000 at serial no. 1395/3319 executed by defendant no. 1 (a), defendant no. 3. defendant no 4 and others in favour of defendant no. 5 (a) and others in the office of the Sub-registrar, Nagpur is sham and bogus and is liable to be declared is null, void, illegal & unenforceable."
5. The amendment application filed by the plaintiffs came to be allowed.
6. Being dissatisfied with the amendment being allowed to the plaint, the petitioners – herein preferred petition before the High Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India essentially on the ground that the Trial Court should not have permitted the plaint to be amended as the prayer for cancellation of sale deed was hopelessly time barred.
7. The High Court overruled the objection as regards the amendment being time barred and affirmed the order passed by the Civil Court permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioners are here before this Court with the present petition.
9. We have heard Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.5 and Mr. Kishor Lambat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original defendants).
10. The Trial Court while allowing the application Exhibit 66 observed as un
