Patna High Court
Shibjee Pd. Singh @ Shivjee Singh vs Manju Devi And Ors on 15 January, 2024
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1023 of 2017
======================================================
Shibjee Pd. Singh @ Shivjee Singh S/o Late Mishri Pd. Singh, R/o Village-
Shahjadpur, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Manju Devi W/o Sri Moti Pd. Singh,
2. Moti Pd. Singh S/o Late Mahavir Pd. Singh, Both are R/o Village-
Shahjadpur, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.
3. Sadanand Singh S/o Late Mishri Pd. Singh, R/o Village- Shahjadpur, P.S.-
Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This Court intends to dispose of the application at
the stage of admission itself.
3. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 20th of April, 2017, passed by learned Sub Judge-V,
Madhepura in Title Suit No. 93 of 2002, by which learned Sub
Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC")
for amendment of written statement of the petitioner/defendant
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1023 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
no.1.
4. The fact of the case, as it appears from the records,
is that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set filed Title Suit No. 93 of
2002, in which defendant no.1/petitioner appeared and filed his
written statement. The basis of the suit of the plaintiffs was an
agreement of sale dated 5th of March, 1999, which was denied
by the defendant no.1/petitioner. It was submitted by the
petitioner that while he was being examined as defendant's
witness on 9th of May, 2016, during his cross examination,
learned counsel for the plaintiffs put before him an agreement to
sale in question and the defendant no.1/petitioner came to know
that this document was different from the stamp paper on which
he put his signature and gave it to his brother/defendant no.2,
which was for sale of 10 Kathas of land only. Since the
agreement to sale, put up before him during cross examination,
was different from the document that he has executed earlier, the
defendant no.1/petitioner moved an application under Order VI
Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for amendment of his written statement. A
rejoinder to this application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs
and learned Subordinate Court, after hearing the parties,
dismissed the application of defendant no.1/petitioner. The said
order is under challenge before this Court.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1023 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
order to decide the real question of dispute between the parties
and if the Court feels that amendment is necessary, amendment
can be allowed at any stage. If the amendment is not allowed, it
will cause irreparable harm to defendant no.1/petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that learned Trial Court did not
consider the fact that defendant no.1 filed his written statement
submitting that he did not make any agreement to sale in favour
of the plaintiffs for sale of the disputed land. It was defendant
no.2 who made the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs and the
plaintiffs asked him to take signature of defendant no.1, as he
was one of the share holders in the ancestral land and on saying
of defendant no.2 that he wanted money as he was in need of it,
so defendant no.2 wanted to sell his share of 10 kathas of land
and for this reason, defendant no.1 put his signature on the
agreement to sale on first page only. The said agreement to sale
was made with defendant no.2 and not with the plaintiffs. For
this reason, defendant no.1 denied the agreement to sale
between defendant no.1 and plaintiffs and when the agreement
to sale in question was put up before him, the defendant no.1
wanted to clarify the facts and wanted to bring the amendment
in his written statement on record. The aforesaid facts were not
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1023 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
considered by learned Subordinate Court.
6. Perused the records.
7. Having perused the records, especially the
impugned order, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order or improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is on
record that the amendment petition was moved after fifteen
years when the evidence of the parties, both the plaintiffs and
the defendants have been completed and the matter was at the
stage of argument. Further, it could be observed that the said
amendment was made only on the ground that defendants were
asked certain questions and some documents were put up before
him for his response then only he has moved before the Court
for amendment of the written statement. If certain document has
come during the evidence being recorded for the defendants and
the defendants are confronted with the same, it does not give
right to the defendants to amend their pleadings in order to fill
up the lacunae in his case. Moreover, the amendment has been
moved at quite belated stage and proviso to Order VI Rule 1
clearly bars such amendment after commencement of trial and
when no due diligence has been shown.
8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1023 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
same is affirmed.
9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Amrendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.01.2024
Transmission Date N/A
