Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar SinghversusSurendra Nath Tiwari
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The petition to set aside the order rejecting the amendment is dismissed as the amendment is not permissible and the petitioner lacks a valid claim.
Summary
The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking to set aside the order of the Sub‑Judge that rejected his amendment to a title suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement. The amendment sought to implead the transferee, Asha Devi, and to declare the sale deed in her favour null and void. The respondent opposed, arguing that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The court observed that the plaint contained no date, time, or place of any agreement and that the defendant was the rightful title‑holder who had lawfully transferred the property without any stay order. Relying on the lack of a valid document or agreement, the court held that the petitioner had no basis to claim the property and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment to implead the transferee and seek declaration of the sale deed is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
- Whether an oral agreement, without any specific details, can support a claim for specific performance in a title suit.
- Whether the Sub‑Judge's order rejecting the amendment can be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order I Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
Subjects
- specific performance
- oral agreement
- amendment of plaint
- sale deed nullity
- Civil Procedure Code
- title suit
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.725 of 2024
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Shiv Pujan Singh Resident of Village-Rajpur,
P.S.-Rajpur, Distt,-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Surendra Nath Tiwari Son of Late Rambachan Tiwari Resident of Village-
Rajpur, P.S.-Rajpur, Dist.-Rohtas, Presently residing at 993, new Bus Stand
Old Traffic Settlement Khadagpur, Distt.-Medanipur (West Bengal)
2. Asha Devi Wife of Krishna Prasad Resident of Village-Rajpur, P.S.-Rajpur,
Dist.-Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 06-02-2026 The instant civil miscellaneous application has
been filed for setting aside the otder dated 21.05.2024,
passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Bikramganj in Title Suit
No. 349 of 2023 whereby he has rejected the petition dated
12.10.2023 filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule
10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he has filed Title Suit No. 349 of 2023 for specific
performance of a contract against the defendant, Surendra
Nath Tiwari, on the basis of an oral agreement with respect
to the suit property. He further submits that during the
pendency of the suit, the defendant has transferred the suit
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2024(5) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
property to one Asha Devi, and he seeks to implead Asha
Devi as a defendant in the suit for proper and complete
adjudication of the matter.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 2 submits that the proposed amendment is fit
to be dismissed because the nature of the proposed
amendment amounts to changing the nature of the suit
because in the proposed amendment a relief has been
sought for that the sale deed executed in her favour be
declared as null and void.
4. From bare perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No.
349 of 2023, it appears that the plaintiff has sought relief for
specific performance of a contract against Defendant No. 1.
However, in the entire pleadings any date, time, or place
regarding the alleged agreement to sell the suit property
with Defendant No. 1is not mentioned. It is an admitted fact
that Defendant No. 1 is the rightful title-holder of the suit
property, and as per submission of learned counsel for the
respondent, in the absence of any stay order passed by a
competent Court, he has validly transferred the suit property
in favour of another party upon receiving valuable
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2024(5) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
consideration. Consequently, he cannot be restrained from
doing so.
5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Manjit Singh &
Anr. Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.
13066 of 2024 decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
6. The principle of aforesaid cited judgment will
not apply in this case because there is no basis of the claim
of petitioner over the suit property for want of any valid
document muchless, the date and time of any agreement.
Moreover purchaser of the suit land will put his leg in the
shoes of his vendor, who is already contesting the suit as
defendant.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court
comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the
aforesaid civil miscellaneous petition and accordingly the
same stands dismissed.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…