Patna High Court
Umesh Yadav vs Arjun Yadav on 24 June, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.599 of 2024
======================================================
1. Umesh Yadav son of Mosaphir Prasad Resident of village- Kendua P.S.-
Hisua, District- Nawada.
2. Dinesh Yadav son of Mosaphir Prasad Resident of village- Kendua P.S.-
Hisua, District- Nawada.
3. Akhilesh Yadav son of Mosaphir Prasad Resident of village- Kendua P.S.-
Hisua, District- Nawada.
4. Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh Kumar son of Mosaphir Prasad Resident of
village- Kendua P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Arjun Yadav son of Bodhi Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-Hisua
District- Nawada.
2. Kuldeep Yadav son of Bodhi Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-Hisua
District- Nawada.
3. Ravindra Yadav son of Arjun Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-Hisua
District- Nawada.
4. Barhu Yadav son of Arjun Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-Hisua
District- Nawada.
5. Chhotu Yadav son of Arjun Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-Hisua
District- Nawada.
6. Ram Pravesh Kumar son of Kuldeep Yadav Resident of village-
Kendua,P.S.-Hisua District- Nawada.
7. Mithilesh Kumar son of Kuldeep Yadav Resident of village- Kendua,P.S.-
Hisua District- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-06-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I
intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of
admission itself.
02. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.599 of 2024 dt.24-06-2025
2/6
16.01.2024
passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Nawada in
Partition Suit No. 74 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the
learned trial court rejected the amendment petition dated
27.04.2023 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code').
03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by
way of their amendment application, the plaintiffs/petitioners
have sought amendment in the plaint to add relief that registered
sale deed no. 9241 dated 20.09.1963 and registered sale deed
no. 10063 dated 27.07.1966 be declared to be void ab initio and
not binding upon the plaintiffs apart from adding relief of Para-
9/A after para-9 wherein they want to mention that plaintiffs
came to know from written statement filed on behalf of the
defendants about two sale deeds being absolutely void and the
same did not confer any title and possession to the defendants.
Learned counsel further submits that both the sale deeds have
been executed by the person, who was having no title and was a
stranger to the family and still, on the basis of these two
documents, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been claiming the
property as their own. Learned counsel further submits that the
learned trial court did not consider the facts of the case and
rejected the amendment application vide order date 16.01.2024.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.599 of 2024 dt.24-06-2025
The said order is not sustainable and fit to be set aside.
04. Perused the record.
05. Evidently, the amendments have been sought in
the years 2023, specifically on 27.03.2023, when the partition
suit is of the year 2006. The impugned order shows the
defendants have filed their written statement on 02.11.2013 and
in their written statement, in paras-14 and 15, specific
averments about sale deeds dated 20.09.1963 and 27.07.1966,
respectively have been made. It has also been claimed that
execution of sale deeds was already within the knowledge of the
grandfather and father of the plaintiffs, but they never
challenged the sale deed. Even otherwise, after filing of the
written statement, the plaintiffs have come to know about the
existence of both sale deeds, still, they did not challenge the
same within the stipulated limitation period and hence, the
challenge to the sale deeds has become time barred. It also
appears from the impugned order that the matter has come at the
stage of argument after conclusion of the evidence of all the
parties.
06. Now, Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC reads as under :
"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings
allow either party to alter or amend his
pleading in such manner and on such terms as
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.599 of 2024 dt.24-06-2025
may be just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties:
Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of trial".
07. Apparently, no due diligence has been shown on
part of the plaintiffs in not seeking the amendment earlier and
before the commencement of the trial. When the defendants
brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs about the existence of
sale deeds, the plaintiffs were bound to challenge the same
seeking declaration against it within three years of their
knowledge as stipulated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act,
1963.
08. 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
and held that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code prevents an
application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.599 of 2024 dt.24-06-2025
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.
09. 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?
(3) The amendment sought not cause such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money;
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.599 of 2024 dt.24-06-2025
(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)
10. Thus, the plaintiffs/petitioners are trying to bring a
time barred claim by way of amendment, which could not be
allowed. The impugned order has also taken note of all the facts
and it is a speaking order supported with reasons. Such orders
need not be interfered with by this Court in a proceeding under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, finding no
infirmity and no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order
dated 16.01.2024, the same is hereby affirmed.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26.06.2025
Transmission Date NA
