Patna High Court: In a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order passed by the by the Sub Judge-VIII, Patna (‘Trial Court’), where under the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was rejected, Arun Kumar Jha, J.*, stated that the amendment sought by the petitioner regarding the area of land and number of purchasers was clarificatory in nature and necessary to reveal the real conflict between the parties. Thus, the Court stated that the Trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction when it refused to allow the amendment petition and accordingly set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent on the first date before the Trial court after passing of the present judgment and stated that the respondents would be given ample opportunities to rebut/convert the petitioner’s claim.
Background:
The petitioner stated that the family of Dhuman Rai owned and possessed 50 decimals of land and after his death, his widow and two sons sold 40 decimals of the land to five persons vide five different sale deeds. The petitioner purchased 9 1/2 decimals land via a sale deed dated 30-03-1971 on payment of consideration amount. All the purchases came into possession of their respective land which they got mutated in their names and started paying rents and obtained rents from the circle office. Later, the petitioner filed a petition against respondent 2 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for trying to capture petitioner’s land, wherein an order was passed in petitioner’s favor. The respondents filed for restoration of proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC, after which an order was passed in respondent’s favor, ending the proceedings.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit, before the Trial Court, for declaration of title of the suit land along with confirmation of possession over the land and also sought relief for a decree of possession to be passed in his favor.
While examination of witnesses was going on, the petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking to amend the area of the land sold by defendant’s ancestors and the number of purchasers stated in the petition. However, the Trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment via the impugned order. Thus, the present petition was filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court had failed to adequately appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and take into consideration the existence of a registered sale deed in the petitioner’s favor. The Trial Court also failed to consider that the respondent based his title on forged documents. The petitioner contended that no new information was being introduced and only facts were being corrected which would not change the nature of the suit.
The respondent claimed that the petitioner did not purchase any land from their ancestors and had presented the Court with false facts. It was further submitted that the petitioner had ample time to make amendments to the plaint and allowing amendments at this stage would be against Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and stated that the provision did not allow for amendments to be made after commencement of trial, barring certain conditions where it could be allowed. The Court referred to Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498, wherein it was held that the commencement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC must be understood in the limited sense as meaning of final hearing, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and adducing of arguments. The proceedings, in the present case were at the stage of the petitioner’s evidence.
The Court stated that the amendment sought by the petitioner regarding the area of land and number of purchasers was clarificatory in nature and necessary to reveal the real conflict between the parties. However, the petitioner had failed to show the reasons why the facts already in existence could not be incorporated in the original plaint or by amendment at the earliest occasion. Further, the Court rejected the contention that the amendment would change the nature of the suit, since an alternative prayer for recovery of suit had already been made in case of dispossession during the pendency of the suit.
Reiterating the principal laid down by the Supreme Court in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, the Court stated that it was very apparent that the amendment was sought after the petitioner’s evidenc started, but since it was the petitioner’s case, if any delay was caused, the petitioner would suffer. It could not be said that allowing the amendment at this stage would not cause prejudice to the other side. However, if the other side could be compensated in terms of cost, the amendment could be allowed. The Court stated that if the amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and for reaching a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a later stage.
The Court stated that if the amendment was not allowed it would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation, as the amendments appeared to be necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. The Court also opined that respondents should be amply compensated for the undue harassment faced by them. Thus, the Court stated that the Trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction when it refused to allow the amendment petition and accordingly set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent on the first date before the Trial court after passing of the present judgment and stated that the respondents would be given ample opportunities to rebut/convert the petitioner’s claim.
[Kamal Kishore Prasad v. Lal Kumar Rai, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 1727, decided on 12-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Advocate.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
