Patna High Court
Ramchandra YadavversusAnatar Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The amendment petition filed at the belated stage of the suit was not allowed, and the lower court's order dismissing it was affirmed.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Yadav family members, filed an amendment petition in a suit (P.S. Case No.09 of 2005) after both parties had closed their evidence. The Sub Judge dismissed the amendment, holding that it was filed at a belated stage. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the amendment was necessary to determine the real question in controversy and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (AIR 2022 SC 4256). The respondents contended that the amendment was a tactic to delay disposal and should be rejected. The Patna High Court, after considering the Supreme Court principles on amendment of pleadings, concluded that the amendment was filed at the final stage and therefore could not be allowed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioners’ application, affirming the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to pleadings filed after the evidence is closed and at the final stage of the suit should be allowed.
- Whether the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit or introduces a new cause of action.
- Whether allowing the amendment would cause prejudice or injustice to the opposite party.
- Applicability of Order II Rule 2 and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to the present amendment petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order II Rule 2, Order VI Rule 17
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order II Rule 2
- Order VI Rule 17
- belated amendment
- prejudice
- real question in controversy
- limitation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1991 of 2017
======================================================
1.1. Phuliya Devi, wife of Late Ramchandra Yadav.
1.2. Kari Devi, W/o Late Ramchandra Yadav.
1.3. Runa Devi.
1.4. Poonam Devi
Both daughters of Late Ramchandra Yadav.
1.5. Sitesh Kumar Yadav.
1.6. Nitesh Kumar Yadav
Both sons of late Ramchandra Yadav
all resident of village - Kalna, Ward No. 5, P.O. and P.S. Basopatti,
District- Madhubani.
2. Maheshwar Yadav
3. Ram Balak Yadav.
Both 2 & 3 sons of late Chaudhary Yadav.
All Resident of Village- Harlakhi Tola, Ranipatti, P.O.- Harlakhi, P.S.
Harlakhi, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Anatar Devi W/o Ganpat Yadav
2. Binod Yadav S/o Late Ganpat Yadav.
Both are resident of Village-Kalna, P.S.-Harlakhi, District-
Madhubani.
3. Paltu Yadav.
4. Umesh Yadav
Both sons of Late Satya Yadav and resident of Village and P.O.-
Basopatti, P.S. Harlakhi, District- Madhubani.
5. Mithilesh Yadav S/o Binda Yadav Resident of Village- Mauzapatti, P.O.
Bisaul, P.S.- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 04-09-2023 In this case, the petitioners are challenging the
order dated 14.06.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge, Benipatti
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1991 of 2017(6) dt.04-09-2023
2/6
in P.S. Case No.09 of 2005, by which the learned Sub Judge has
dismissed the amendment petition filed by the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the learned Sub Judge while rejecting the amendment
petition has not considered the fact that proposed amendment do
not change the nature of the suit. He also submits that the
learned Sub Judge has also not considered the fact that proposed
amendment was necessary for determining the real question in
controversy between the parties. Therefore, this Court may
quash the impugned order and allow the amendment petition
filed by the petitioners in the Court below.
3. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private
Limited & Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256.
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents
submits that in the Court below the evidence of both the parties
has been closed and the amendment being sought by the
petitioners is at the last stage of the case just to delay the
disposal of the case and therefore, the Court below has rightly
dismissed the amendment petition filed by the petitioners.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1991 of 2017(6) dt.04-09-2023
3/6
5. I have considered the rival submissions of
the parties and also perused the materials on record including
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited & Anr. (supra). Paragraph no.70 of the
aforesaid decision is the conclusion of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter, which reads as under:-
“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against
a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for
application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its
purview. The plea of amendment being barred
under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus,
misconceived and hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in
controversy provided it does not cause injustice
or prejudice to the other side. This is
mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the
word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between
the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings,
provided
(a) the amendment does not result in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1991 of 2017(6) dt.04-09-2023
4/6
injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw
any clear admission made by the party
which confers a right on the other side
and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time
barred claim, resulting in divesting of the
other side of a valuable accrued right (in
certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally
required to be allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred
claim is sought to be introduced, in
which case the fact that the claim would
be time barred becomes a relevant factor
for consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of
the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is
malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side
loses a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a
hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily
required to be liberal especially where the
opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the
court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and
would aid in rendering a more satisfactory
decision, the prayer for amendment should be
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1991 of 2017(6) dt.04-09-2023
5/6
allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to
introduce an additional or a new approach
without introducing a time barred cause of
action, the amendment is liable to be allowed
even after expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed
where it is intended to rectify the absence of
material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is
not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the
aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for
amendment could be allowed and the issue of
limitation framed separately for decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of
the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an
entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in
the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed.
Where, however, the amendment sought is only
with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is
predicated on facts which are already pleaded
in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to
be liberal in its approach. The court is required
to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party
would have a chance to meet the case set up in
amendment. As such, where the amendment does
not result in irreparable prejudice to the
opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an
advantage which it had secured as a result of an
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1991 of 2017(6) dt.04-09-2023
6/6
admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally,
where the amendment is necessary for the court
to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in
controversy between the parties, the amendment
should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v.
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1897).” s
6. In the present case, it is an admitted position
that the parties have led their evidences and thereafter the
application for amendment has been filed. In the above decision,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that amendment should not
be allowed at a belated stage. I find that the amendment petition
filed in the Court below is at the fag end of the case, which
should not be allowed and the Court below has rightly rejected
the amendment petition.
7. In view of the above, this application is
dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…