Patna High Court
Ram Pravesh Sah vs Ram Nath Sah And Ors on 14 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1587 of 2017
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Sah Son of Baij Nath sah, Resident of Village-Karinga Kothi,
Police Station-Chapra Muffasil, District-Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ram Nath Sah Son of Bhuneshwar sah, Resident of Village-Karinga Kothi,
Police Station-Chapra Muffasil, District-Saran at Chapra
2. Ramchandar Sah Son of late Mita Sah
3. Daroga Sah Son of late Bangali Sah
4. Sheo Pujan Mahto
5. Deo Pujan Mahto Both are Sons of late Ram Pravesh Mahto, All 2 to 5 are
Resident of Village-Karinga Kothi, Police Station-Chapra Muffasil, District-
Saran at Chapra.
6. Baijnath Sah Son of late Visheshar Sah Resident of Village-Karinga Kothi,
Police Station-Chapra Muffasil, District-Saran at Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I
intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission
itself.
02. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
31.07.2017
passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Chapra in Title
Suit No. 370 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the application
dated 26.08.2016 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the
Code') has been rejected.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1587 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025
impugned order is not sustainable and it is illegal and improper.
The plaintiff/petitioner has filed this amendment application to
clarify the pleading and seeking a relief on the basis of such
pleading, which has been left to be mentioned in the main plaint.
Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff has mentioned
about Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11
of his plaint about the defendant/respondent 1 st set in the present
case getting a fraudulent decree from the court with regard to suit
property and the plaintiff has sought amendment to reproduce
this fact after para-11 that by the said Title Suit No. 228 of 1993,
the defendant no. 1 did not get any right, title or possession and
the decree is a void document and thereafter, sought the relief
that the decree of Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 be declared void and
frivolous document by which the defendant no. 1 did not get any
title or possession over the suit property. Learned counsel further
submits that the said amendment is necessary for adjudication of
real question of controversy between the parties and though the
amendment has been sought at a late stage, still, in the interest of
justice, it should have been allowed.
04. Perused the record.
05. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned
order dated 31.07.2017 that the amendment has been sought at
the stage of argument and it is also a fact that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1587 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025
plaintiff/petitioner has mentioned about the same facts in
paragraphs-9, 10 and 11 of his plaint though in different terms. It
is a also apparent from the pleadings that father of the
plaintiff/petitioner was a party in the said suit. Thus, the
plaintiff/petitioner is seeking an amendment from a court of same
jurisdiction about declaration of decree, which was passed by the
court of same jurisdiction, to be a void document, for which the
plaintiff/petitioner has separate remedy available.
06. In any case, the amendment has been sought much
after the commencement of trial and specifically at the time of
argument. There is no material brought on record to show that
plaintiff/petitioner could not have sought this amendment before
the commencement of trial. The suit was filed in the year 2004
and the facts about Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 have already been
mentioned in paras-9, 10 and 11 of the plaint and still, the
plaintiff did not mention this fact in his plaint for almost 10
years. There is no explanation for the delay in seeking
amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basavaraj vs. Indira & Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705, has
held that the Court should not allow the amendments at belated
stages if due diligence has not been shown. In the case of
Basavaraj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the case
of M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma reported in (2019) 4 SCC 332
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1587 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025
and held that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code prevents an
application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless
the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the
party could not have earlier raised the issue. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that the burden is on the party
seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in
spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought
earlier. From the facts of the present case, it is much apparent
that no due diligence has been shown for not bringing the said
amendment earlier at any point of time.
07. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs M/s.
Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors, reported in 2009 AIR SCW
6644 in paragraph 67 has formulated basic principles in Para-67
for allowing or rejecting the application for amendment which
reads as under:-
"67. On critically analyzing both the
English and Indian cases, some basic
principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment.
(1) Whether the amendment sought is
imperative for proper and effective
adjudication of the case?
(2) Whether the application for
amendment is bona fide or mala fide?
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1587 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025
(3) The amendment sought not cause
such prejudice to the other side which cannot
be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) Refusing amendment would in fact
lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) Whether the proposed amendment
constitutionally or fundamentally changes the
nature and character of the case? And
(6) As a general rule, the court should
decline amendments if a fresh suit on the
amended claims would be barred by limitation
on the date of application."
(emphasis supplied)
08. Thus, the amendment sought to be introduced is
clearly barred by the provisions of Order-VI Rule 17 and the
same has been rightly rejected by the learned trial court.
Therefore, finding no infirmity and no error of jurisdiction in the
impugned order dated 31.07.2017, the same is hereby affirmed.
09. Accordingly the present petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
