Patna High Court
Kapildeo Barai vs Ram Kyas Barai on 2 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 (NOC) 765 (PAT), AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 1371
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.500 of 2019
======================================================
1. Kapildeo Barai Son of Dhanlal Barai R/o Village- Hisauna Paragana Pujauri,
P.S.- Vijayipur, P.O.- Ahiyapur, District- Gopalganj.
2. Dhupdeo Barai Son of Dhanlal Barai R/o Village- Hisauna Paragana Pujauri,
P.S.- Vijayipur, P.O.- Ahiyapur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ram Kyas Barai S/o Bindeshwari Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
2. Baliram Barai S/o Bindeshwari Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
3. Sugreev Barai S/o Bindeshwari Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
4. Manager Barai S/o Vikrama Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
5. Sarda Barai S/o Vikrama Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
6. Sampatiya Devi D/o Vikrama Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
7. Dukhi Barai S/o Yadunath Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
8. Ram Awadh Barai S/o Dukhi Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
9. Baharan Barai S/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
10. Ratani Devi D/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
11. Sunaina Devi D/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
12. Girija Devi D/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
13. Ramashankar Barai S/o Ram Ratan Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
14. Bhola Barai S/o Ram Ratan Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
15. Prabhawati Devi D/o Ram Ratan Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
16. Dhodha Barai S/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
17. Srilal Barai S/o Ram Raj Barai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
18. Khajanti Sah S/o Teja Sah R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019
2/9
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
19. Munte Rai S/o Vishundeo Rai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
20. Chunnu Rai S/o Mangal Rai, Vishundeo Rai R/o Village- Chhitauna
Paragana Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
21. Bullu Rai S/o Vishundeo Rai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
22. Most Shashi Prabha W/o Vishundeo Rai R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
23. Most Rajmati W/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
24. Arun Kumar Yadav S/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
25. Sudhakar Yadav S/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
26. Sushila Devi D/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
27. Vimal Devi D/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
28. Ratan Devi D/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi, P.S.-
Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
29. Sheela Devi D/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
30. Sandhya Devi D/o Kishun Yadav R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
31. Most Subhagiya W/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
32. Ram Sevak Koyari S/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
33. Shiv Shankar Koyari S/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
34. Rajdev Koyari S/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
35. Nagina Koyari S/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
36. Goniya Devi D/o Muni Lal Koyari R/o Village- Chhitauna Paragana Kuadi,
P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
37. Vishwanath Yadav S/o Laxmi Prasad Yadav R/o Village- Kutiya Pargana
Kuadi, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shyama Kant Singh
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019
3/9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-08-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order
dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IX, Gopalganj
in Title Suit No. 136 of 1996 by which the petition dated
11.12.2018filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for amendments in the plaint has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below has erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioners merely on the ground of delayed filing. The proposed amendments are necessary for adjudication of the matter and to consider the real issue in question. He pleaded that by not allowing the amendments sought to be introduced, the court below has completely failed to appreciate the facts and law involved in the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that the suit is of the year 1996. The defendants had filed their written statement on 02.06.1997. The Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 4/9 issues were framed long back and at the final stage of argument, just in order to delay the trial, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the petitioners on 11.12.2018. He contended that if the amendments sought for by the petitioners are allowed, the same would cause great prejudice to the defendants- respondents, as the amendments would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. It would be evident from the pleading of the petitioner that Title Suit No. 136 of 1996 was filed by the petitioners against the defendants for partition of 1/3rd in the schedule properties as detailed in Schedule-1 of the plaint and for permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement on 02.06.1997.
7. At much belated stage when the parties had led their evidences and argument had commenced, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC on 11.12.2018 for the following amendments :-
"1. यह ककि ववाद पत्र किकी किकंकडिकिवा-2 किके पपृष्ठ सकंख्यवा 5 पर पहलली पकंकक्ति मम रघघुनकंदन बरई भली किके बवाद तथवा बकेलवा औलवाद किकी बलीच मम बहवालत एलसदगली जजोड़ कदयवा जवाय।
2. यह किकी ववादपत्र किकी किकंकडिकिवा -2 किके बवाद एकि नयली किकंकडिकिवा-2 कि कनम्नवाकंककित आशय किवा जजोड़ कदयवा जवाय :-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 5/9 कि. यह किकी रघघुनकंदन बरई किकी पत्नली मघु० बन्हह ई किके मरनके किके बवाद उनकिकी सकंपतत किकी उतरवातधिकिवारली ....................... किकी हहैतसयत सके उनकिकी एकि मवात्र पघुत्रली सलहकतयवा थली और सलहकतयवा किके मरनके किके बवाद इस सकंपतत किके उतरवातधिकिवारली जगलवाल बरई थके। बक्सलीसनवामवा कदनवाकंकि 13.02.1928 ई 0 किवा प्रभवाव ववास्तव मम सरमडिरनवामवा किवा थवा तजसकिके दवारवा मघु 0 बन्हह ई नके अपनली बकेटली सलहकतयवा किकी सकंपतत सके अपनली किघुल सकंपतत अपनके नवातली जगलवाल बरई किके पक्ष मम सघुपघुदर किर किब्जवा किरवा कदयवा। इस प्रकिवार उक्ति बख्शलीशनवामवा जजो ववास्तव मम सरमडिरनवामवा थवा , किके आधिवार पर रघघुनकंदन बरई किके कहस्सके ववालली भभूकम पर जगलवाल बरई किवा दखल किब्जवा टलीनमट इन किकॉमन किके रूप मम हह आ एवकं रहवा। सलहकतयवा एवकं जगलवाल बरई किके अकतररक्ति रघघुनकंदन बरई किकी सकंपकत किवा मघु 0 बन्हह ई किके मरणजोपरवाकंत किजोई अन्य उतरवातधिकिवारली नहहीं थवा।"
8. The defendants-respondents filed their rejoinder to the petition dated 11.12.2018 on 08.01.2019. They contended that in case amendments are allowed, the same would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case and the application has been made at late stage of the proceeding.
9. On perusal of the plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs-petitioners have stated in para 2 of the plaint that Raghunandan Barai died issueless whereas the amendment, which is sought for says that Raghunandan Barai had a daughter. After his death, his daughter Salhatiya became the legal heir of his property and after the death of Salhatiya, her son Jaglal Barai became the legal heir of her property.
10. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent no.1 has rightly submitted that the amendment sought for by the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 6/9 plaintiffs-petitioners would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case.
11. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
12. In Salem Advocates Bar Association T.N. Vs. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344], the Supreme Court held that if the application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that inspite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.
13. In Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd., [(2008) 14 SCC 364], the Supreme Court held as under :-
"To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 7/9 out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso."
14. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons, [(2009) 10 SCC 84], the Supreme Court held as under :-
"On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 8/9 (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."
15. In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, [(2008) 5 SCC 117], the Supreme Court held as under :-
"The entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had sufficient knowledge of the other's case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due diligence, he could not raise a plea, it is for the court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any Patna High Court C.Misc. No.500 of 2019 dt.02-08-2019 9/9 later application. As stated earlier, the reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite hearing of cases."
16. In the instant case, as noted above, admitted case of the plaintiffs-petitioners is that the amendments were sought to be introduced not only after the trial had commenced but at a much belated stage when the case was being argued finally. It would also be evident that there is nothing to suggest that in spite of due diligence the plaintiffs-petitioners could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Since the exception to the first part of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was not at all satisfied, the court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. Furthermore, the amendment sought for would certainly be a new and inconsistent case, which would certainly prejudice the case of the defendants-respondents.
17. Hence, the court below rightly rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs-petitioners. The application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 07-08-2019 Transmission Date