Sheela Verma vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 968 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.737 of 2022
     ======================================================

1. Sheela Verma, W/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

2. Ravi Prakash Verma, S/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma @ Awadh Kumar Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

3. Prabhat Ranjan Verma, S/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

4. Vikash Kumar Verma, S/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

5. Gyanesh Kumar @ Gyanesh Kumar Verma, s/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

6. Chandan Kumar Verma, s/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

7. Deep Mala @ Rashmi, D/o Late Mahanth Awadh Prasad Verma, R/o Mahabir Asthan, Main Road, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Patna.

2. The Collector, Patna, District- Patna.

3. The Additional Collector, Patna.

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Sadar, Patna.

5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP 18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 14-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

under Article 227 of the constitution has been filed against the

order dated 25.08.2022, passed by learned Additional District

and Sessions Judge 16th, Patna in Title Appeal No. 145 of 1994

by which he has rejected the amendment petition dated

10.02.2014, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants under

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The petitioners are the appellants (legal heirs of

original plaintiff) before the learned lower appellate court. The

original plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 28 of 1988 for declaration

that land of Patna Municipal Corporation Plot No. 1127 and

1129 being amalgamated had been in peaceful possession and in

use of plaintiff belonged to Sri Mahabirjee of Kamta Shakhi

Math and by long possession and by use for more than 60 years

the plaintiff has perfected his right, title and interest over the

suit property by adverse possession. The disputed plots no. 1127

and 1129 were amalgamated since before survey and there is no

sign of separation and those bear an area 0.171 decimals

(equivalent to 5 katha 14 dhurs and 9 dhurki) of holding no.

101/79, Circle No. 9, Ward No. 01 under Patna Municipal

Corporation. The further case of the plaintiff is that Baba Ram

Das Jee had got constructed a temple of Sri Mahabirjee and a

pukka well in about year 1920 over a portion of the plots and Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

after his death Samadhi is also made on the said land. After his

death, his chela the original plaintiff used to manage the puja-

path of Mahabir Asthan and he also got constructed the ashram

over the said land and also constructed some temporary

hutments for shops for the earning for puja-path and rag-bhog

of Sri Mahabirjee. Due to appreshension by the plaintiff that the

respondents may demolish the sacred samadhi of Baba Ram Das

Jee, he filed the suit. In encroachment proceeding, DCLR, Patna

has passed an order for removal of encroachment over the said

land which was lastly quashed by this court in CWJC No. 2396

of 1977 vide order dated 04.07.1979.

4. The learned trial court dismissed the said suit

vide it's judgment and decree dated 23.09.1994, against which

the plaintiffs/appellants filed title appeal no. 145 of 1994 before

the learned District Judge, Patna which is pending for its final

disposal in the court concern.

5. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiffs/

appellants have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

seeking addition of cadastral plot number and khata number in

schedule of the plaint stating that the same has not been

mentioned in the schedule of the plaint since appellants were not

aware about the same rather they got the information about the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

same during the pendency of the appeal itself which are

necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case. The

objection petition had not been filed on behalf of respondnets

but it was objected on the ground that the same has been filed to

delay the disposal of appeal. The said amendment petition was

rejected by the learned lower Appellate Court vide impugned

order dated 25.08.2022 on the ground that the same has been

filed belatedly to delay the disposal of old appeal and also on

the ground that sufficient reasons have not been shown.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the learned appellate court below has failed to appreciate that all

the foundational facts are already on record and by the

amendment appealants only want to insert cadastral plot number

and khata number and the same would not change the nature of

suit and by this amendment no prejudice will cause to the

respondents. He has further submitted that Municipal Survey

Map, Municipal Khatian, and Cadastral Map have been

exhibited and in the report of karamchari, there is discussion

about both the khatian and it is necessary to bring on record the

cadastral khatian and plot. He has submitted that there was no

delay in filing the amendment petition when the appellants got

the knowledge with respect to cadastral khatiyan and plot Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

number and no fresh evidence need to be given. Further, he has

submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate that it

is well settled law that if foundational facts is on record and no

prejudice is going to be caused to other side then amendment

can be allowed at any stage. On these grounds, learned counsel

for the petitioners prays to allow the application.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that

the petitioners want to delay the adjudication of the old case by

filing the various applications. He has submitted that the suit is

of the year 1988 and the appeal is of the year 1994 and the said

amendment application had been filed on the final stage of the

disposal of appeal. Accordingly, the same cannot be allowed and

he prayed to dismiss this application.

8. The principles governing applications seeking

amendment of pleadings moved under Order 6 Rule 17 are well

settled. The whole object and purpose of introduction of Order 6

Rule 17 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to settle

the entire dispute at rest, thus keeping in view the expression "at

any stage of the proceedings" employed in Order 6 Rule 17

CPC, the court is competent to deal with the application for

amendment as it keeps seisin over the case till the controversy is

not decided at any point of time even at the stage of second Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

appeal.

9. It is well settled that rules of procedure are

intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A

party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some

mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of

procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading

of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was

acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to

his opponent which cannot be compensated by an order of cost.

10. There is no impediment or total bar against an

appellant court permitting amendment of pleadings, provided

the party seeking amendment should offer a reasonable

explanation for delay in making the application seeking

amendment and he has to adduce, strong and valid reasons as to

why amendment sought for, was not made in the trial court.

11. Delay in applying for amendment or

possibility of proceedings getting protracted were the prayer for

amendment to be allowed, are not, therefore, statutorily

envisaged as grounds on which a prayer for amendment of

pleading may legitimately denied.

12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank ( AIR 2007 SC 251) Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

observed that delay in applying for amendment cannot be a sole

ground to reject the prayer.

13. The provision of Section 107 CPC provides

that appellate court shall have the same power and shall perform

as may be the same duties as conferred and imposed by this

Code of Civil Procedure on courts of original jurisdiction in

respect of suit instituted therein. The appeal is continuation of

suit and keeping in view the mandate of Section 107 CPC, the

appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to allow the

amendment application for the ends of justice keeping in view

the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

14. The law is well settled that if justice wants,

amendment could be allowed at the appeal stage also. I find

amendment sought for is in the nature of clarification of suit

land, I do not find any bar in allowing such amendments which

would not change the nature of suit and will not cause any

prejudice to the respondents.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case, as discussed above, the amendment

sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs shall not prejudice the case of

the respondents/defendants and shall advance the cause of

justice.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.737 of 2022 dt.14-03-2023

16. In the result, the application is allowed and the

impugned order dated 25.08.2022 passed in title appeal No. 145

of 1994 by the learned Additional District Judge- 16 th , Patna is

hereby set aside. Accordingly, the amendment sought by the

petitioners/appellants is allowed and they are permitted to make

necessary amendment in the plaint within four weeks. Since, the

appeal is very old, the appellate court below shall take steps for

expeditious disposal of appeal and both parties are directed to

assist the court in disposal of the same.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

khushbu/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                21.02.2023
Uploading Date          14.03.2023
Transmission Date