Patna High Court
Laxman Singh vs Damodar Singh And Ors on 31 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2088 of 2017
======================================================
Laxman Singh S/o Late Ram Dihal Singh Resident of Village-Siyarampur,
P.S. Paliganj, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Damodar Singh and Ors S/o Late Ram Dihal Singh
2. Govind Singh S/o Late ram Dihal Singh
3. Renu Kumari W/o Late Shyam Bihari Singh All Resident of Village-
Siyarampur, P.O. Siyarampur P.S. Paliganj, District Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
18.09.2017
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Paliganj in Title
Suit No. 36 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the amendment
application of the plaintiff/petitioner was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
amendment is formal in nature and a gift deed dated 02.07.1994
which was executed by father of the plaintiff in favour of his
other son Dineshwar Singh has been sought to be challenged
through the amendment. The plaintiff has filed a suit for
partition claiming that no partition has taken place and if no
partition has taken place, the father of the plaintiff has no right
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2088 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
to execute the gift deed. Due to inadvertence and mistake of the
counsel, the gift deed dated 02.07.1994 could not be challenged
earlier.
4. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, I find that written
statement in this case was filed on 26.11.2001 and in the written
statement the defendants, have stated in para 6 that father of the
plaintiff, namely Ram Dihal Singh, executed a gift deed in
favour of Dineshwar Singh on 02.07.1994 and put his son
Dineshwar Singh in possession. There has also been averment
about partition in the family of Ram Dihal Singh in the same
paragraph. Now the instant amendment application has been
filed by the plaintiff on 16.08.2017 i.e., after almost 16 years of
filing of the written statement. If the plaintiff/petitioner got the
knowledge of the gift deed way back in the year 2001, bringing
the amendment application after 16 years does not help the
cause of the plaintiff/petitioner in any manner. By way of
amendment, the plaintiff/petitioner wants to introduce a time
barred claim. Therefore on these two accounts, the amendment
application of the plaintiff/petitioner does not appear to be bona
fide.
In the case of Basavaraj Vs. Indira & Ors. reported in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2088 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
(2024) 3 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
Court should not allow the amendments at belated stages if due
diligence has not been shown.
6. As the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to show any
due diligence despite having knowledge of gift deed in the year
2001 and further failing to explain why a time barred claim
should be allowed, the learned trial court has rightly passed the
orders and there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned dated
18.09.2017 hence, the same is affirmed.
7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
