Dismissed¶¶25

Shailendra Kumar Soni v. Sita Devi @ Ritu

Patna HC7 Apr 2025C.Misc./789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of specific admission through amendment of written statement not permitted; amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure rejected and affirmed; Probate Case No. 31 of 2022 under Section 276 Indian Succession Act 1925, District Judge Bettiah; testator Ramdhani Prasad; petitioners sons and daughters (Shailendra Kumar Soni, Shivendra Kumar Soni, Seema Kumari, Sudha Kumari @ Soni) versus widow Sita Devi @ Ritu; illness September 2021, Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology Patna, AIIMS Delhi, heart attack, coma, death 17.11.2021; Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024, Arun Kumar Jha J, 07-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Although courts are liberal in allowing amendments, a specific admission made by a party cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. ¶¶24

Shailendra Kumar Soni Vs Sita Devi @ Ritu — Succession and Inheritance | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8th, Bettiah, rejecting the petitioners' amendment petition in Probate Case No. 31 of 2022, was improper and ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

No infirmity was found in the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 and the same was affirmed; consequently the petition stood dismissed.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Although courts are liberal in allowing amendments, a specific admission made by a party cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The proposed amendment was in substance an attempt by the petitioners to withdraw the admission made by them in their written statement that the testator was never ill and remained physically and mentally fit till his death; as such withdrawal of a specific admission is impermissible, the amendment could not be allowed.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 (decided 07-04-2025, Arun Kumar Jha, J): Dismissed, at admission stage, the petitioners' challenge to the order dated 08.04.2024 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8th, Bettiah, West Champaran in Probate Case No. 31 of 2022 (filed by respondent Sita Devi @ Ritu under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on 02.06.2022 for probate of the Will of testator Ramdhani Prasad), whereby her amendment-petition rejection order had refused the petitioners' amendment application dated 06.12.2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of paragraph 13 of their written statement. Held that though courts are liberal in allowing amendments, a specific admission made by a party cannot be allowed to be withdrawn: the petitioners, having admitted in their written statement that the testator was never ill from September, 2021 till his death and remained in control of his physical and mental faculties, sought by the amendment to introduce the testator's illness, referral to Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and AIIMS, Delhi, heart attack and coma before death on 17.11.2021 — in effect an attempt to retract their admission. Finding no infirmity, the impugned order was affirmed and the petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.789 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Shailendra Kumar Soni Son of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Soni @ Ramdhni Prasad Resident of Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah Bettiah, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Manuapul, District- West Champaran.

¶4

Shivendra Kumar Soni, Son of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Pd. Soni @ Ramdhni Prasad Resident of Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah Bettiah, P.O.Bettiah, P.S.- Manuapul, District- West Champaran.

¶5

Seema Kumari, Wife of Chandeshwar Kumar, Daughter of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Soni, Resident of Village and P.O. and P.S. - Ramgarhawa, District- East Champaran.

¶6

Sudha Kumari @ Soni, Wife of Sri Sunil Kumar, Daughter of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Soni, Resident of Village- Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah, Bettiah, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Manwapul, District- West Champaran.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sita Devi @ Ritu Wife of Late Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Soni, Resident of Village- Mauza-Chhawani, Near Idgah, Bettiah, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 07-04-2025

¶13

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

¶14

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8^th , Bettiah, West Champaran in Probate Case No. 31 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition dated 06.12.2023 filed by the petitioners who are opposite parties in the probate proceeding filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code

¶15

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025 2/4

¶16

of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed Probate Case No. 31 of 2022 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the Court of learned District Judge, Bettiah on 02.06.2022 for grant of probate of Will of testator Ramdhani Prasad in her favour. The petitioners are sons and daughters of Ramdhani Prasad, respectively who appeared and filed their objection. During pendency of the probate case, the opposite party/petitioners filed an amendment application seeking amendment in paragraph 13 of their written statement but the said written statement was rejected by the learned trial court and the same is under challenge before this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that evidence of one witness has been recorded and that if the amendment petition was allowed, there would be some change in the nature of the suit which would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners want to bring on record only the fact that the petitioners took the testator for his treatment to the Medical College, Bettiah and from there he was referred to

¶19

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025 3/4

¶20

Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and thereafter he was referred to AIIMS, Delhi. Further the testator was brought to his house at Bettiah on 13.11.2021 and on 14.11.2021 he suffered heard attack and went into COMA and died on 17.11.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not proper and correct and hence, the same be set aside.

¶21

Perused the record.

¶22

From perusal of record in specific paragraph 13 of the written statement filed before the learned trial court, it reflects the petitioners have denied the claim of the plaintiff/petitioners/respondents that Ramdhani Prasad fell seriously ill in September, 2021 and lost physical and mental control over the body and finally he died on 17.11.2021. This chronology of events has been denied by the petitioners who further stated that Ramdhani Prasad never fell ill seriously and never lost his physical and mental faculties. It has further been submitted by the defendants/petitioners that Ramdhani Prasad was quite hale and hearty till the time of his death. Now the petitioners want to bring on record the facts about illness of Ramdhani Prasad, the testator suffering heart attack and being

¶23

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.789 of 2024 dt.07-04-2025 4/4

¶24

referred to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and thereafter, to AIIMS, Delhi whereas the petitioners have made an admission that the testator was never ill from September, 2021 till his death and he was in control of his physical and mental faculties and his physical and mental condition never deteriorated and also that Ramdhani Prasad was physically and mentally fit till the date of his death. The petitioners could not be allowed to withdraw their admission. No doubt the courts are liberal in allowing the amendment but the specific admission made by any of the parties could not be allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioners are in fact trying to withdraw the admission made by them. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 and hence, the same is affirmed.

¶25

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶26

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

Anuradha/-

¶28

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	09.04.2025
Transmission Date	N/A

Shailendra Kumar Soni v. Sita Devi @ Ritu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar Soni v. Sita Devi @ Ritu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Kumar Vs Seema Kumari

Ram Raushan Sharma @ Pankajsharma Vs The State of Bihar

Jcb India Limited Vs Patna Municipal Corporation

Parvez Ahmad Vs Suresh Rai

Bhadai Sharma Vs Biltu Sharma

Nagendra Pandey Vs Abhimanyu Kumar Pandey