Patna High Court
Satya Nand SharmaversusShankar Ram
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The amendment does not withdraw a material admission nor prejudice the plaintiff, so the order allowing the amendment is upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Satya Nand Sharma, filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking to quash an order dated 23 May 2017 that allowed the respondents to amend their written statement by deleting the phrase "at present tenant of the plaintiff". The petitioner argued that the original verification clause contained an admission that the respondent was a tenant of the plaintiff, and that deleting it would withdraw a material admission and prejudice his case in Title Suit No. 393 of 2015. The respondents contended that the suit was a title suit, not an eviction suit, and that the amendment only affected the verification portion, not the pleadings, and did not amount to an admission of tenancy of the suit property. The trial court held that the phrase in the verification clause did not constitute a substantive admission and that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff. The High Court agreed, finding no illegality or impropriety in the trial court's order, and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment deleting the phrase "tenant of the plaintiff" from the verification clause withdraws a material admission and causes prejudice to the plaintiff.
- Whether such an amendment is permissible in a title suit where the claim is not for eviction.
- Whether the expression in the verification clause amounts to an admission of tenancy of the suit property.
Subjects
- civil procedure
- amendment of written statement
- admission
- title suit
- quashing order
- prejudice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1529 of 2017
======================================================
Satya Nand Sharma S/o Late Raghubansh Ojha, Resident of Village and Post-
Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.1. Mahesh Ram Son of Late Shankar Ram, Resident of Village and Post -
Khabra, Police Station - Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.2. Ganesh Ram Son of Late Shankar Ram, Resident of Village and Post -
Khabra, Police Station - Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.3. Kiran Kumari Wife of Sita Ram, Resident of Village - Noon Chapra, Post -
Makshudpur, Police Station - Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.4. Rupa Kumari Wife of Shyam Ram, Resident of Village - Noon Chapra, Post
- Makshudpur, Police Station - Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Niraj Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
10 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the
parties.
2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous application has
been filed for quashing the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the
learned Sub-Judge IX, Muzaffarpur, in Title Suit No. 393 of
2015 whereby and whereunder the Court below allowed the
amendment petition dated 05.02.2016 filed by the
defendant/respondent with prayer for deletion of the word
“Tenant of plaintiffs situated” by which the plaintiff will be
highly prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting
the admission from the defendant.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1529 of 2017(10) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 393 of 2015. In the written
statement, the defendant/respondent, in the verification page,
had categorically admitted that he is a “resident of Village–
Paigamberpur Kolhua and at present a tenant of the plaintiff,
situated at Village and P.O.–Khabra, P.S.–Sadar, District–
Muzaffarpur.” Subsequently, the defendant sought amendment
of the written statement by deleting the words “at present tenant
of the plaintiff,” which amendment has been allowed by the
impugned order. By virtue of the said order, the clear admission
earlier made by the defendant/respondent stands withdrawn,
thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the defendant/respondent contends that the present
case is a Title Suit and not an Eviction Suit. It is further
submitted that the amendment pertains only to the verification
portion of the written statement and not to the pleadings
contained therein. Moreover, even assuming the said statement
to be an admission, it is merely an admission of being a tenant
of the plaintiff and not an admission of tenancy in respect of the
suit property. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner/plaintiff. Learned Trial Court has rightly held that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1529 of 2017(10) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
expression “tenant of the plaintiff situated” appearing in the
verification clause of the written statement does not amount to
an admission, and has further rightly held that allowing the
amendment petition would not cause any prejudice to the
plaintiff.
5. After going through the entire facts, I find that there
is no illegality and impropriety in the aforesaid impugned order
hence it is upheld and the instant Civil Miscellaneous
application stands dismissed.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…