The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Shankar Choudhary @ Shankar Kumar Choudhary Vs Jasso Miyan held that delay in bringing the amendment itself, is no ground to refuse the amendment.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the present Respondents filed the title suit for the declaration that the defendants didn’t acquire any right, title, and interest in the suit property which was declared in the possession of the Petitioner during the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C and to restrain the Petitioners from interfering in the property of the Imambara mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. The petition was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint which was allowed by the learned court below. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the learned court below.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the court below failed to take into consideration the fact that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit as initially the suit was filed for 5 dhur land but now the respondents are claiming additional land. Furthermore, it was contended that the petition for amendment of the plaint was allowed even though the petition was filed at the belated stage and no reasonable explanation for the same was given. At last, it was contended that the petitioner wants to incorporate the changes in the gift deed which cannot be allowed as in accordance with Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, rectification in the gift deed can only be done by the parties to the gift deed and by none else.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that in one paragraph only it is stated as 5 dhur so in the interest of justice the amendment should be allowed in order to clarify the fact available on record. It was furthermore contended that no evidence has been produced by the plaintiff so it cannot be said that the trial has commenced
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgments titled Chander Kanta Bansal Vs Rajinder Singh Anand, M/s Ganesh Trading Co. Vs Moji Ram, Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayan Swamy and Sons and Others, Pankaja and Anr. vs. Yellappa (D), and Ors, Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Ors, and Vidyabai Vs. Padma Latha & Anr.
The Hon’ble Court observed that pre-trial amendments will be granted with greater flexibility than amendments sought after the trial commences. The defendants are not affected because they will have an opportunity to meet the proposed change.
It was furthermore observed that the goal of permitting amendments to plaint is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the parties may not invoke procedural law to postpone a trial. It is generally established that a delay in presenting the amendment itself is not grounds for rejecting the amendment.
It was noted that the proposed amendment will not alter the nature of the suit and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if the amendment is allowed.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court supported the decision of the learned trial court in allowing the petitioner to make amendments in the plaint.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Shankar Choudhary @ Shankar Kumar Choudhary Vs Jasso Miyan
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Civil Misc. Jurisdiction no. 899 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate Ms. Sarita Bajaj, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abdul Manman Khan, Advocate Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
