Patna High Court
Nand Kishor Singh vs Most. Bedameya Devi on 12 August, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.569 of 2025
======================================================
1. Nand Kishor Singh son of Rajendar Singh, Resident of Village
Mohammadpur Buzurg @ Lakhanpur, Ward No. 7 P.S. Desari District
Vaishali.
2. Shiv Nath Singh son of Rajendar Singh, Resident of Village Mohammadpur
Buzurg @ Lakhanpur, Ward No. 7 P.S. Desari District Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Most. Bedameya Devi wife of late Jai Mangal Singh resident of Alipur
Banvira P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Raja Pakar District Vaishali.
2. Sanjeet Kumar Patel son of Late jai Mangal Singh resident of Alipur Banvira
P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Raja Pakar District Vaishali.
3. Ram Shrestha Singh son of Late jai Mangal Singh resident of Alipur Banvira
P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Raja Pakar District Vaishali.
4. Shambhu Prasad Singh son of Late jai Mangal Singh resident of Alipur
Banvira P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Raja Pakar District Vaishali.
5. Panwa Devi wife of Sita Ram Singh and Daughter of late Jai Mangal Singh
resident of Alipur Banvira P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Raja Pakar District
Vaishali.
6. Krishna Devi wife of Indradeo Singh D/o Late Jaimangal Singh, resident of
Village Mohjamma P.O Lakshmipur P.S. Mahua District Vaishali.
7. Kumari Sunita Sinha wife of Shivnath Singh D/o Late Jaimangal Singh
resident of Village Alipur Vanveera P.O. Supajan Bakhari P.S. Rajapakar
District Vaishai.
8. Sushila Sinha wife of Devendar Singh D/o Late Jaimangal Singh, resident of
Village Chosema, P.O. Lakshmipur P.S. Jandaha District Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2025
The record taken up on mentioning being made on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I intend
to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.569 of 2025 dt.12-08-2025
2/5
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
08.01.2025
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Mahnar, Vaishali in Title Suit No. 49/1984 whereby and
whereunder the learned trial court allowed the amendment petition
filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the amendment has been sought at a very belated stage as the suit
was filed in the year 1984 and the written statement was filed on
07.07.1986. After closure of evidence, the record was put up for
argument in the year 2013, still the plaintiffs did not seek any
amendment till that time and when the argument has been
continuing in the matter, in order to fill up lacuna in their case, the
amendment has been sought. No due diligence has been shown.
Therefore, the amendment is hit by Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The learned
counsel further submits that earlier the plaintiffs have been
claiming that Sita Mahto was their grandfather. Now they are
denying this fact. The plaintiffs want to delay the disposal of the
suit and only, for this reason, they have filed the amendment
application, but the learned trial court wrongly allowed the said
amendment petition.
5. Perused the records.
6. Perusal of record shows in paragraph 4 of the plaint,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.569 of 2025 dt.12-08-2025
an averment has been made that the grandfather of the plaintiffs
was one Sita Mahto, who purchased the suit land on 17.02.1917.
This averment has been denied by the defendants in their written
statement that Sita Mahto was the grandfather of the plaintiffs.
Now by way of amendment, the plaintiffs have sought to
incorporate the fact that Sita Mahto was the brother of the
grandfather and he died issue-less.
7. Since the suit has been filed in the year 1984, the
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in
view of Section 16 (2) (b) of the Amending Act, 2002 which
provided that the proviso would not be applicable on pleadings
filed before the date of amendment, i.e., 01.07.2002. Therefore,
the plaintiffs were not supposed to show due diligence for belated
filing of amendment after commencement of trial.
8. In the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda
Shidgonda Patil & Ors, AIR 1957 SC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed "...We think that the correct principles were
enunciated by Batchelor, J. in his judgment in the same case viz.
Kisandas Rupchand case [(1920) LR 47 IA 255] when he said at
pp. 649-650: "All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy
the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side,
and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties ..."
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.569 of 2025 dt.12-08-2025
9. In the present case, since the averment is already
there about Sita Mahto being the purchaser of suit land on
17.02.1917 and the plaintiffs claiming the land through him, now
the plaintiffs want to amend the pleadings to the effect that Sita
Mahto was not their grandfather, rather he was the brother of the
grandfather and died issue-less and in this manner, the petitioners
came into title and possession of the suit land.
10. Since the facts were already on record, it cannot be
said that defendants/petitioners were taken by surprise by
introduction of these facts as they themselves also denied the
relationship of grandfather and grandson between Sita Mahto and
the plaintiffs. Therefore, allowing amendment could not be said to
be causing any injustice to the defendants. However, it is a
material fact that the amendment has been sought after 40 years
and, therefore, for putting the defendants to so much
inconvenience, the learned trial court ought to have compensated
the defendants by way of imposition of cost which it did not and to
that extent the order needs modification.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order so far as allowing the amendment
part is concerned. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025
is affirmed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five
thousand only) to be paid by the contesting plaintiff to the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.569 of 2025 dt.12-08-2025
contesting defendant on the first date before the learned trial
court after passing of this judgment.
12. However, the contesting defendant will be given
ample opportunity to rebut/controvert the claim of the plaintiffs
sought to be brought through amendment by way of filing
amended written statement/additional written statement.
13. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year
1984, the learned trial court will look into the matter and take
up expeditious steps for its disposal.
14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the
instant petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
