Patna High Court

Sunita DeviversusJai Prakash Prasad

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: S B P SINGH

Holding

The order allowing amendment of the plaint is upheld as there is no illegality or impropriety.

Summary

The petitioners Sunita Devi and Panchalel Gupta filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking to set aside the Sub‑Judge's order dated 07‑07‑2025 which allowed the respondents to amend their plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The petitioners argued that the amendment was permitted without any valid reason and that the trial had not yet commenced, with a written statement already filed. The High Court observed that since the trial had not started, allowing the amendment would not cause multiplicity of proceedings and the defendants had been granted liberty to file an additional written statement. The Court found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Consequently, the application was dismissed and the order allowing amendment was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the Sub‑Judge erred in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC without assigning a reason.
Whether such amendment is permissible when the trial has not yet commenced and a written statement is already filed.

Subjects

Amendment of plaint
Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Civil miscellaneous application
Trial not commenced
Written statement

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1205 of 2025
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sunita Devi wife of Panchalal Gupta, resident of village - Majirwankala,
                  Tola Bharpurwa, P.O. Radhaganj, P.S. Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj.
           2.    Panchalal Gupta, son of Manager Gupta, resident of village - Majirwankala,
                 Tola Bharpurwa, P.O. Radhaganj, P.S. Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    Jai Prakash Prasad son of Late Ram Swaroop Gond, resident of village -
                 Kusum Bathua @ Gularbagga, P.O. Songarhwa, P.S. Phulwariya, District-
                 Gopalganj.
           2.     Achchhelal Prasad @ Ajay Kumar Gond, son of Late Ram Swaroop Gond,
                  resident of village - Kusum Bathua @ Gularbagga, P.O. Songarhwa, P.S.
                  Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj.
                                                                      ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh
                                               Mr. Najib Ahmad
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-01-2026                   The present Civil Miscellaneous application has

                   been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed

                   by learned Sub-Judge-I, Hathua Sub Division, Gopalganj in

                   Title Suit No. 313 of 2023 whereby and whereunder petition

                   dated 21.09.2024 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil

                   Procedure Code by the plaintiff respondents for amendment in

                   the plaint has been allowed.

                                 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the proposed amendment has been allowed by the impugned

                   order without assigning any valid reason.

                                 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1205 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                             2/3




          is apparent that the trial has not commenced till date.

          Although the written statement had already been filed prior to

          passing of the order allowing amendment and liberty has been

          granted to the defendant to file an additional written statement

          with respect to the amended pleadings.

                       4. From perusal of the proposed amendment and the

          impugned order, it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to

          amend the description of the suit property and to incorporate

          certain additional particulars relating thereto. Since the trial

          has not yet commenced, and in order to avoid multiplicity of

          proceedings and further litigation, there is no legal

          impediment to allowing the amendment of the plaint at this

          stage. Moreover, adequate liberty has already been granted to

          the defendant/petitioner to make all necessary pleadings in the

          Written Statement with regard to the amended facts.

                       5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no

          illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Accordingly,

          the same is upheld and the instant application stands

          dismissed. The defendant shall be at liberty to incorporate the

          essential facts in the written statement confined to the above

          amended pleadings in the plaint.
          Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1205 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                                 6. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous

                    application stands disposed of.



                                                (S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…