Patna High Court
Shailendra Kumar Soni vs Sita Devi @ Ritu on 7 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.789 of 2024
======================================================
1. Shailendra Kumar Soni Son of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad
Soni @ Ramdhni Prasad Resident of Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah Bettiah,
P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Manuapul, District- West Champaran.
2. Shivendra Kumar Soni, Son of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Pd. Soni
@ Ramdhni Prasad Resident of Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah Bettiah, P.O.-
Bettiah, P.S.- Manuapul, District- West Champaran.
3. Seema Kumari, Wife of Chandeshwar Kumar, Daughter of Late Ramdhani
Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Soni, Resident of Village and P.O. and P.S. -
Ramgarhawa, District- East Champaran.
4. Sudha Kumari @ Soni, Wife of Sri Sunil Kumar, Daughter of Late
Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Soni, Resident of Village- Mauza-Chhawani,
Near Idgah, Bettiah, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Manwapul, District- West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sita Devi @ Ritu Wife of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Soni,
Resident of Village- Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah, Bettiah, P.O.- Bettiah,
P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I intend
to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
08.04.2024
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, 8th, Bettiah, West Champaran in Probate Case No. 31 of
2022 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition dated
06.12.2023 filed by the petitioners who are opposite parties in
the probate proceeding filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025
of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent has filed Probate Case No. 31 of 2022 under Section
276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the Court of learned
District Judge, Bettiah on 02.06.2022 for grant of probate of
Will of testator Ramdhani Prasad in her favour. The petitioners
are sons and daughters of Ramdhani Prasad, respectively who
appeared and filed their objection. During pendency of the
probate case, the opposite party/petitioners filed an amendment
application seeking amendment in paragraph 13 of their written
statement but the said written statement was rejected by the
learned trial court and the same is under challenge before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on
the ground that evidence of one witness has been recorded and
that if the amendment petition was allowed, there would be
some change in the nature of the suit which would cause
irreparable loss to the petitioners. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners want to bring on record only the fact
that the petitioners took the testator for his treatment to the
Medical College, Bettiah and from there he was referred to
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025
Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and thereafter he
was referred to AIIMS, Delhi. Further the testator was brought
to his house at Bettiah on 13.11.2021 and on 14.11.2021 he
suffered heard attack and went into COMA and died on
17.11.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the
amendment would not change the nature of the suit. Thus,
learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not proper
and correct and hence, the same be set aside.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of record in specific paragraph 13 of
the written statement filed before the learned trial court, it
reflects the petitioners have denied the claim of the
plaintiff/petitioners/respondents that Ramdhani Prasad fell
seriously ill in September, 2021 and lost physical and mental
control over the body and finally he died on 17.11.2021. This
chronology of events has been denied by the petitioners who
further stated that Ramdhani Prasad never fell ill seriously and
never lost his physical and mental faculties. It has further been
submitted by the defendants/petitioners that Ramdhani Prasad
was quite hale and hearty till the time of his death. Now the
petitioners want to bring on record the facts about illness of
Ramdhani Prasad, the testator suffering heart attack and being
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025
referred to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and
thereafter, to AIIMS, Delhi whereas the petitioners have made
an admission that the testator was never ill from September,
2021 till his death and he was in control of his physical and
mental faculties and his physical and mental condition never
deteriorated and also that Ramdhani Prasad was physically and
mentally fit till the date of his death. The petitioners could not
be allowed to withdraw their admission. No doubt the courts are
liberal in allowing the amendment but the specific admission
made by any of the parties could not be allowed to be
withdrawn. The petitioners are in fact trying to withdraw the
admission made by them. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not
find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 and
hence, the same is affirmed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.04.2025
Transmission Date N/A
