Patna High Court - Orders
Krishna Madhav Sinha @ Krishna Madhav ... vs Birendra Kumar Sinha And Ors on 30 August, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.978 of 2018
======================================================
Krishna Madhav Sinha @ Krishna Madhav Lal son of Late Rama Shankar
Lal, R/O Village-Barka Rajpur, PO, Barka Rajpur, PS-Simri, Distt-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Birendra Kumar Sinha son of Late Bhagwati Sahay, R/O 2-B, Harsh
Prateek Kutir, Akashwani Road, Khajpura, Patna.
2. Ashok Kumar Sinha, son of Late Rama Shankar Lal, R/O 13/1 Anandpuri,
West Boring Canal Road, Patna.
3. Anil Kumar Sinha son of Gauri Shankar Sahay, R/O House No. A-9B, M.C.
Lane, Road No. 6-D, Gardanibagh, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Shankar Saran Singh,
Mr. Rajesh Sinha, Advocates.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 30-08-2022Heard Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Shankar Saran Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. A probate has been granted in favour of the petitioner with respect to the Will executed by testator, Bhagwati Sahai in Probate Case No. 12/2012 on 31.05.2012.
3. A Probate (Revocation) Case No. 12/2012 was filed by the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 inter alia on the ground that they were not made parties in the probate case despite the fact that they are near relatives of the testator. In the said revocation case, the petitioner filed an objection petition on 01.03.2013. However, subsequently thereafter, the petitioner Patna High Court C.Misc. No.978 of 2018(6) dt.30-08-2022 2/5 filed a petition for amendment in the objection petition and sought to add paragraphs 10 (KA) and 10(KHA) after paragraph-10 of that objection petition and also to correct typographical error in paragraph 2 to the extent that the date mentioned therein as 12.02.2012 be read and treated as 31.05.2012.
4. This amendment application was objected by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the provision of Order VI Rule 17 for amendment in the objection is not applicable and Order VI Rule 1 is limited to the plaint and written statement and the Opposite Parties have filed the said objection in order to delay the disposal of the revocation case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment sought by him is simple in nature and during course of argument learned counsel submits that he is not pressing for entire amendment sought by the petitioner as mentioned in para- 10 (KA) and (KHA) and only seeks to amend the first six lines of 10(KA) which is quoted hereinbelow:-
^^10d** ^^;g fd lquokbZ ds le; ;g tkfgj oks lkfcr gksxk fd vkosndx.k lfgr izksosV okn la[;k 12 lu~ 2012 esa of.kZr oa"kkoyh ds lHkh thfor O;fDr;ksa dks izksosV okn la[;k 12 lu~ 2012 ds izR;sd dk;ZokbZ;ksa dh fof/kor tkudkjh jgh vkSj os yksx izkFkhZ dk nkok lgh ikrs gq, tku cq>dj izksosV okn esa mifLFkr ugha gq,A**
6. Learned counsel further submits that the second Patna High Court C.Misc. No.978 of 2018(6) dt.30-08-2022 3/5 similar petition filed by him for amendment shall not be pressed in the concerned court. He also submits that no evidence shall be led by the petitioner after the amendment in objection petition to the extent of first six lines of para-10 (KA) is allowed. Accordingly, the position which emerges that the petitioner does not want to amend the statement made in later portion of para-10(KA) and 10(KHA) and forego his right for the same. Further with regard to amendment sought in para-2 with respect to typographical error in date, learned counsel submits that this is in nature of correction of typographical error.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Uday Shankar Saran Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that after coming into force, the proviso of Order VI Rule 17, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the objection at the advanced stage after commencement of trial and the case is fixed at the argument's stage. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. reported in (2006)12 SCC 1 in support of his argument.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the material available on record and the nature of amendment sought by the petitioner, it is evident that no Patna High Court C.Misc. No.978 of 2018(6) dt.30-08-2022 4/5 prejudice shall be caused to the respondents if the amendment to the extent agreed by the petitioner before this Court is allowed.
And further, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that except the amendment to the aforesaid extent as agreed by the petitioner before this Court, the petitioner shall not lead any evidence, as such, in my opinion, by allowing the amendments to the aforesaid extent, no injustice or prejudice shall be caused to the respondents.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117 has held that to some extent the proviso limits the scope of amendment to pleadings, but would still vest enough powers in courts to deal with the unforeseen situations whenever they arise. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application.
10. Since the petitioner has given undertaking that he will not lead any further evidence on the limited amendment sought by him, the disposal of the revocation petition shall not be affected by that.
11. Accordingly, in order to advance the cause of justice, the amendment to the limited extent as agreed by the petitioner to the extent of first six lines of paragraph 10(KA) Patna High Court C.Misc. No.978 of 2018(6) dt.30-08-2022 5/5 quoted hereinabove as well as correction of typographical error in paragraph 2 to the extent that the date mentioned therein as 12.02.2012 be read and treated as 31.05.2012, is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Sub Judge 1st, Buxar is set aside.
12. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
13. It is made clear that any other amendment petition on behalf of the petitioner shall not be entertained by the concerned court.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U