Patna High Court
Anil Kumar Singh vs Bhola Mian on 8 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.799 of 2023
======================================================
1. Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Rama Nandan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S.
Siwan town, district Siwan.
2. Tarashani Devi, W/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
3. Gudiya Devi D/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
4. Sapna Devi, D/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town, district
Siwan.
5. Kundan Sah, S/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
6. Nand Kishore Sah, S/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
7. Deepak Kumar, S/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
8. Jathi Devi, d/o late Ramdat Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
9. Prarli Devi, d/o Parmananda Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
10. Gopal Singh, S/o Late Ramdat Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
11. Balkunwar Devi, d/o late Ramdat Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
12. Ramavati Devi, w/o late Laljee Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
13. Phuljhari Devi, d/o late Ramjash Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
14. Laljhari Devi, d/o late Ramjash Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
15. Rinku Devi, d/o Laljee Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
16. Deelip Kumar, S/o Late Laljee Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
17. Shri Bhagwan Prasad, S/o Late Ramjash Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S.
Siwan town, district Siwan.
18. Nandji Prasad, S/o Late Ramjash Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
19. Ramayan Singh, s/o Late Ramjash Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
20. Meera Devi, d/o late Ramnandan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
2/11
21. Rani Devi, d/o late Ramnandan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
22. Indu Devi, d/o late Ramnandan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
23. Saroj Devi, w/o Late Ramnandan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
24. Pramila Devi, d/o Late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
25. Urmila Devi, d/o late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
26. Mohan Prasad, S/o Late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
27. Hemchandra Prasad, S/o Late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S.
Siwan town, district Siwan.
28. Shambhu Prasad, S/o Late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S.
Siwan town, district Siwan.
29. Panmati Devi, w/o Late Parmanand Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
30. Awadhkishore Sah, S/o Kanhai Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
31. Mutur Devi, d/o Late Jayotissh Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
32. Deepmala Devi, d/o Late Jayotissh Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
33. Sawminath Sah, s/o Moti Chand Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
34. Shiv Bilari Devi, w/o Jyoti Shah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
35. Santosh Shah, s/o late Jyoti Shah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
36. Binod Shah, s/o late Jyoti Shah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
37. Vikash Shah, S/O Late Jyoti Shah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
38. Ramnath Shah, S/o Moti Chand Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
39. Raghunath Sah, S/o Moti Chand Sah, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
40. Kabar Lal Singh, S/o Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
41. Kali Shankar Singh, S/o Ram Lagan Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
42. Basanti Devi, D/O Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
3/11
town, district Siwan.
43. Rajvanti Devi, D/o Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
44. Pooja Devi, D/o Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan town,
district Siwan.
45. Kulwanti Devi, D/o Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
46. Baachi Devi, D/o Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
47. Vishwambhar Singh, S/o Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
48. Kanwar Lal Singh, S/o Thakur Singh, R/o Village Jhunapur, P.S. Siwan
town, district Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bhola Mian s/o Late Daudh Mian, r/o village Hasanpura, PS Majharul
Nagar, District Siwan, at present r/o village Jhunpur, Siwan, District Siwna.
2. Ali Hussain, S/o Kamdar Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
3. Hasiban Khatoon, w/o Ajmullah, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
4. Noor Tara, W/o Ramanya Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
5. Chand Babu Ansari, S/o Ramayan Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan
Town, District Siwan.
6. Khurshid Ansari, S/o Ramayan Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan
Town, District Siwan.
7. Azeem Ansari, S/o Ramayan Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
8. Mannu Ansari, s/o Ramayan Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
9. Jamila, daughter of Rahman Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
10. Nagma, daughter of Rahman Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
11. Rubi Khatun, daughter of Rahman Miyan, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan
Town, District Siwan.
12. Paras Pandey, S/o Murlidhar Pandey, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
13. Shanti Pandey, s/o Murlidhar Pandey, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
14. Akhatar Mian, s/o late Majid Mian, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
4/11
District Siwan.
15. Aavid Mian, s/o late Majid Mian, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
16. Sahjaha Khatoon, d/o late Majid Mian, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan
Town, District Siwan.
17. Jaitun Khatoon, d/o late Majid Mian, R/o village Bindusar, PS Siwan Town,
District Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shyama Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties and I intend to
dispose of the petition at the stage of admission itself.
2.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
13.01.2023
passed by learned Munsif 1st, Siwan in Title Suit No.
335 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has
rejected the application dated 24.10.2019 filed on behalf of the
petitioners for amendment in the written statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are defendants and respondent no. 1 is the
plaintiff before the learned trial court. In paragraph 26 of the
written statement there is mention of one gift deed dated
01.09.1993 but the said gift deed was executed on 01.09.1973.
The petitioners moved amendment petition for correction of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
typographical error which was rejected by the learned trial
court. Learned counsel further submits that though the
amendment petition was moved at the time of evidence of
defendants, the same would not cause any prejudice to the other
side as only the date of the gift deed is sought to be amended
and it is apparent from bare perusal of the record that in place of
'73', '93' has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the written
statement. Apart from that no other change is being made in the
written statement. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the
impugned order may be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no. 1 submits that the amendment petition dated 24.10.2019 was
the 3rd petition, whereby and whereunder the petitioners sought
amendment in the written statement with regard to the date of
the gift deed. Earlier two petitions were not pressed and
dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners have been grossly
negligent in seeking amendment at the stage when the trial has
already commenced. Learned counsel submits that the
impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the
fact and does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
and on perusal of the record, I find that though the amendment
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
has been moved after commencement of trial, the amendment is
related to only correction in the date of the gift deed which
appears to be a typographical error. The intent of Order 6 Rule
17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') is to
determinr the real controversy between the parties and all the
amendments could be allowed for this purpose. However,
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code provides amendment
shall not be allowed after commencement of trial unless due
diligence is shown by the party seeking amendment for not
bringing the amendment before commencement of trial. But, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 in paragraph 70 held as under:-
"70. Our final conclusions may be summed
up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar
against a subsequent suit if the requisite
conditions for application thereof are
satisfied and the field of amendment of
pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The
plea of amendment being barred under
Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived
and hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which
are necessary for determining the real
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
question in controversy provided it does not
cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
This is mandatory, as is apparent from the
use of the word "shall", in the latter part of
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.(iii) The prayer
for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective
and proper adjudication of the controversy
between the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings,
provided
(a) the amendment does not result in
injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any
clear admission made by the party which
confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time
barred claim, resulting in divesting of the
other side of a valuable accrued right (in
certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally
required to be allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is
sought to be introduced, in which case the
fact that the claim would be time barred
becomes a
relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the
suit,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide,
or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a
valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment
of pleadings, the court should avoid a
hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily
required to be liberal especially where the
opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the
court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute
and would aid in rendering a more
satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to
introduce an additional or a new approach
without introducing a time barred cause of
action, the amendment is liable to be
allowed even after expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed
where it is intended to rectify the absence of
material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone
is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where
the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer
for amendment could be allowed and the
issue of limitation framed separately for
decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature
of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
up an entirely new case, foreign to the case
set up in the plaint, the amendment must be
disallowed. Where, however, the amendment
sought is only with respect to the relief in the
plaint, and is predicated on facts which are
already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the
amendment is required to be allowed.(xi)
Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required
to be liberal in its approach. The court is
required to bear in mind the fact that the
opposite party would have a chance to meet
the case set up in amendment. As such,
where the amendment does not result in
irreparable prejudice to the opposite party,
or divest the opposite party of an advantage
which it had secured as a result of an
admission by the party seeking amendment,
the amendment is required to be allowed.
Equally, where the amendment is necessary
for the court to effectively adjudicate on the
main issues in controversy between the
parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)".
So a liberal approach could be adopted if the amendment
is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy
between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceeding,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. Here the
amendment sought is most formal and merely typographical
error.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1 that the earlier applications have been rejected
is concerned, admittedly those applications were not pressed
and no orders have been passed on merit. But the perusal of
those two applications also make it clear that the petitioners
have been negligent all along.
7. Therefore, without further discussion, I am of the
opinion that the learned trial court erred on this point and
rejected the amendment application and the same cannot be
sustained hence, the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 is set
aside. The amendment application dated 24.10.2019 is allowed
subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid at the time of
hearing before the learned trial court. Accordingly, the present
petition stands allowed.
8. Since it is a suit of 1991 and a number of
administrative directions have been issued to the court
concerned to dispose of the old matters on priority basis, the
learned trial court is directed to dispose of Title Suit No. 335 of
1991 within six months from the date of receipt/production of a
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.799 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
copy of this order as the parties undertake before this Court that
they will not seek unnecessary adjournment and cooperate in
disposal of the suit.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
