The Patna High Court, while disposing of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif allowed the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the plaint, held that though it appears that a time-barred claim/relief is being sought to be introduced by way of amendment, considering the initial stage of the suit, the effect could be as if the amended plaint is the original plaint since the trial has not commenced.
Brief Facts:
Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a Title Suit against the defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to Schedule 1 & 2 land. The title suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 filed Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and the said miscellaneous case was dismissed by the learned trial court. Against the dismissal order, the defendants preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code. The learned appellate court set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The learned trial court allowed the amendment petition, which has been challenged before this Court in the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned trial court acted illegally and passed the impugned order ignoring the law, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that respondent no. 1 had full knowledge of the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1983 from the date of its execution and registration. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 sought to introduce a time-barred claim and the learned trial court ought to have declined the proposed amendment on the ground that a fresh suit on the amended claim shall be barred by law of limitation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same does not need any interference. He argued that the amendments could be allowed at any stage and at the beginning of the suit all amendments are to be allowed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that all such amendments could be allowed as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
The Court observed that though it could be said that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has been negligent and his careless and casual approach allowed certain rights to be accrued in favour of the defendants/petitioners, it should always be the endeavour of the Court to make efforts to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and towards these efforts, the Court could grant leave to amend the pleading unless the same appears to be malafide or deprives other-side a valid defence. The Court said that from the facts of the case, though it appears that a time-barred claim/relief is being sought to be introduced by way of amendment, considering the initial stage of the suit, the effect could be as if the amended plaint is the original plaint since the trial has not commenced.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order is affirmed subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the contesting respondent to the petitioners.
Case Title: Mohan Sahani & Ors. v Jagan Sahani & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case No.: Civil Misc. Juris. No.432 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Prakash Chandra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
