The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the lower court's permission to amend a 1985 plaint. The Court held the 2002 amendment adding a proviso barring belated amendments did not apply retroactively.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19571 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur through Its Municipal Commissioner Sri Bihari Das Son of Late Chhedi Das .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Surya Balli Yadav Son Of Late Ram Kumar Yadav Resident Of Mohalla Koilaghat, P.O. Adampur, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur .. .. ..Respondent 1st set 2. Ram Chandra Yadav Son of Sri Meghu Yadav Resident of Rapatganj (Adampur), P.S. Kotwali District Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent 2nd set ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha For the Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 11-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur in T.S. No. 155/85 whereby the court below has allowed an amendment petition filed by the respondent 1st set, who is the plaintiff before the court below, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘in short as the Code’).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and erroneous in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code inasmuch as learned court below has not considered the aspect as to what prevented the respondent 1st set/ plaintiff to bring on records such facts at the earlier stage.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19571 of 2012 (2) dt.11-09-2013
2/3
According to him, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, it was not permissible for the court below to have allowed the amendment petition in absence of any sufficient explanation in this regard. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 1985 and, in view of the amendment, the decision in the suit has further been delayed for no valid reasons.
I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, the amendment in the plaint could not have been allowed by the court below after commencement of trial, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any explanation that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, for the reason that the said proviso was introduced by the amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2002. In my opinion, the suits filed prior to 01.07.2002 shall not be governed by the amended provision, which came into force with effect from 01.07.2002.
To permit a party to amend the pleadings is discretion of the trial court. This court, unless satisfied that by way of amendment the nature of the suit is going to be changed or some grave injustice is being caused, will not interfere with an order permitting such amendment. I am also of the view that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19571 of 2012 (2) dt.11-09-2013
3/3
impugned order will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as he has been given opportunity to file his additional written statement, pursuant to the amendment which has been allowed. I also take note of the fact that the court has imposed cost of Rs. 1000/- while allowing amendment at belated stage. Such order needs no interference by this court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
BKS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's permission to amend plaint filed prior to the 2002 amendment barring amendments after trial commencement.
Whether granting amendment to a suit filed in 1985 causes prejudice to the petitioner in absence of explanation for delay.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation
Surya Balli Yadav
Ram Chandra Yadav
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
