Dismissed¶29

Tej Narayan Das and Anr. v. Most. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Patna HC14 Jul 2025C.Misc./186/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; rejection of amendment application affirmed; vagueness and frivolousness of proposed paragraph 11(1); alleged forcible/fraudulent obtaining of defendant no.1's thumb impression after institution of suit; need for averments connecting amendment to defendant's written statement; Patna High Court C.Misc. No.186 of 2017; Tej Narayan Das and Binod Kumar Das v. Kabita Devi, Anita Devi, Pawan Kumar Singh, Rajeev Kumar Mahto, Ranjana devi and Pramod Singh; Title Suit No. 253 of 2012, Sub Judge-III, Purnea; impugned order dated 05.12.2016; petition dismissed at admission stage on 14-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 was affirmed and the petition dismissed at the admission stage itself. ¶29

Tej Narayan Das and Anr. Vs Most. Rekha Devi and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 was affirmed and the petition dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Sub Judge-III, Purnea in Title Suit No. 253 of 2012 rejecting the plaintiffs' amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is sustainable. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

There is no force in the petitioners' contention that the impugned order is unsustainable, because the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was completely vague.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On a bare reading, the amendment seeks to insert paragraph 11(1) averring that defendant no.2 and one Chandan Mehta forcibly obtained defendant no.1's thumb impression after filing of the suit, without mentioning any document pertaining to the suit or the relevance of the statement.

¶25

Key takeaways

The amendment application does not deserve any consideration and was rightly rejected by the learned trial court.ratio¶27
Although counsel pointed to defendant no.1's written statement regarding a fraudulent left thumb impression on stamp paper, that could not be treated as the plaintiffs' statement unless the plaintiffs amended their plaint to bring the fact on record; without any averment in the amendment application connecting it to the written statement, the proposed amendment is completely vague and frivolous.ratio¶27
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2016, the High Court affirmed it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J), disposing of C.Misc. No.186 of 2017 at the admission stage itself, dismissed the petition and affirmed the order dated 05.12.2016 of the learned Sub Judge-III, Purnea in Title Suit No. 253 of 2012, rejecting the plaintiffs'/petitioners' amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The proposed insertion of paragraph 11(1) — alleging that defendant no.2 (Rajeev Kumar Mahto) and Chandan Mehta, in collusion, forcibly obtained defendant no.1's thumb impression subsequent to the filing of the suit — was held to be completely vague and frivolous: it did not mention any document pertaining to the suit on which the thumb impression was taken, disclosed no relevance of the statement to the suit, and contained no averment connecting the amendment to defendant no.1's written statement (which had referred to defendant no.2 obtaining her left thumb impression fraudulently on some stamp paper). The High Court held that the written-statement reference could not be treated as the plaintiffs' statement unless brought on record through the plaint amendment with appropriate connecting averments.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.186 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Tej Narayan Das

¶4

Binod Kumar Das. Both Sons of Sri Ayodhya Prasad Das. No. 1 and 2 are Resident of Village-Gangeli, P.S.-Krityanand Nagar, District-Purnea.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.1. Kabita Devi, W/o Rajeev Kumar Mahto and daughter of late Most. Rekha Devi, Resident of Village and P.O. Sri Nagar, P.S. Kritayanand Nagar, District- Purnea, Pin- 854304.

¶8

1.2. Anita Devi, Daughter of late Most. Rekha Devi and W/o of Navin Kumar Singh @ Mehata Resident of Bansgarh, P.S. Korha, P.O.- Korha, DistrictKatihar, Pin- 854108.

¶9

Pawan Kumar Singh, Son of Late Birendra Singh, grabd-son of Late Parnu Mahto. Nos.1 and 2 are Resident of Village-Gangeli, P.S.-Krityanand Nagar, P.O.-Gangeli, District-Purnea.

¶10

Rajeev Kumar Mahto, Son of Sri Kalanand Mahto, Son-in-law of Most. Rekha devi Resident of Village and P.O.-Sri Nagar, P.S.-Krityanand Nagar, District-Purnea.

¶11

Ranjana devi, W/o Late Abhay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Gangeli, P.S.-Krityanand Nagar, P.O.-Gangeli, District-Purnea.

¶12

Pramod Singh, Son of Late Sohan Das, Resident of Village-Gangeli, P.S.Krityanand Nagar, P.O.-Gangeli, District-Purnea.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Vijay Prakash Bhargava, Advocate

¶16

======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-07-2025

¶18

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well

¶19

as learned counsel for the respondents and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

¶20

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Purnea in Title Suit No. 253 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the amendment

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.186 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025 2/3

¶22

application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has been rejected.

¶23

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order impugned is not sustainable, I do not find any force in this argument, for the reason that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was completely vague. The amendment sought is reproduced for reference:

¶24

“(A) In Page No. 8 after end of Para-11 add Para “11(1) that it is submitted that recently it has been learnt that defendant 2^nd party namely Rajeev Kumar Mahto and Chandan Mehta in collusion with each other has forcibly obtained thumb impression of Defendant No. 1 subsequent to the filing of the above mentioned Suit” to be lamented.”

¶25

Now, bare reading of this amendment shows that the plaintiffs/petitioners want to insert new paragraph-11(1) after paragraph-11 with the averment that the defendant no.2 and one Chandan Mehta forcibly obtained the thumb impression of defendant no.1 subsequent to filing of the suit. Without mentioning anything about thumb impression being taken on any document pertaining to the suit or what is the relevance of this statement, the amendment application of the

¶26

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.186 of 2017 dt.14-07-2025 3/3

¶27

plaintiffs/petitioners does not deserve any consideration and the same has been rightly rejected by learned trial court. Though learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment has been sought in the light of written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 wherein she has stated about defendant no. 2 obtaining her left thumb impression fraudulently on some stamp paper, the same could not be taken as the statement of the plaintiffs unless the plaintiffs amend their plaint to bring the said fact on record and without any statement/averment being made in the amendment application to connect the amendment with the statement of the written statement, the amendment sought to be incorporated is completely vague and frivolous.

¶28

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2016, the same is affirmed.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶30

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶31

Ashish/-

¶32

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	15.07.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Tej Narayan Das and Anr. v. Most. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Narayan Das and Anr. v. Most. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshwar Prasad Pandey Vs Awadh Kishor Singh

Uday Kapar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mobinuddin and Anr. Vs Md. Naroz Alam and Ors.

Reegan Raddy @ Giran Redadi Vs Parshuram Mandal

Smt. Radha Devi and Anr. Vs Shri Rajendra Prasad and Anr.

Jitendra Kumar Sinha Vs Usha Sahai @ Usha Sahay