The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the lower court's refusal to allow amendment of a plaint. The court held the amendment was barred due to lack of due diligence and the timing of the request. No interference was found under Article 227.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.15310 of 2014
=========================================================== 1. Munshi Singh Son of Late Khobhari Singh, Resident of Village - Sondhi, P.O.Sondhi, P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Ram, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-10-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
By the impugned order the learned court below has turned down the prayer on behalf of the plaintiff praying for amendment in the plaint.
After considering the submissions and perusal of the materials on record as well as the impugned order, it is evident that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2006. The defendant no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15310 of 2014 dt.27-10-2016
2
1 appeared in the suit in the year 2007 and filed his written statement, wherein, in paragraph no. 10 the categorical statement of the gift deed executed in his favour by Bindu Devi was disclosed. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has also accepted that the plaintiff, who was examined as PW-1 on 19.12.2009 in his deposition in paragraph no. 19 had also disclosed the knowledge about the gift deed. However, the amendment petition was filed on 20.05.2014 by the plaintiff seeking to incorporate the relief(s) against the gift deed, the sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit as well as to add some persons as party in the suit. The learned court below has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the said gift deed but even after examining all the witnesses on his behalf he has omitted to seek any relief with regard to the said document. It has also been found that the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff could not have been allowed in accordance with law in view of the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C as introduced by amendment. There is no dispute that the trial has commenced in the suit and the element of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner is clearly absent.
This Court has not been persuaded to find any illegality justifying interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15310 of 2014 dt.27-10-2016
3
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J)
Ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date09.11.16
Transmission N.A.
Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could quash the lower court's denial of the petitioner's petition to amend the plaint.
Whether the plaintiff's delay and lack of due diligence precluded the amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Munshi Singh
Jai Ram Singh
Maharaji Devi
Nageshara Kuer
Binda Devi
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
