Patna High Court
Paras Manjhi vs Akhileshwar Prasad And Ors on 3 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.194 of 2016
======================================================
Paras Manjhi son of Late Bhola Manjhi Resident of Village- Madhopur,
Police Station- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Akhileshwar Prasad son of Kanhaiya Lal Prasad
2. Bankelal Prasad son of Satyanarayan Prasad
3. Lalu Mahto son of Jeevnandan Mahto
4. Sita Ram Manjhi son of Thakur Manjhi
5. Bhokal Manjhi son of Doma Manjhi
6. Kabiraj Miyan son of Deen Ali Miyan
7. Bal Khila Chaudhary son of Tapeshwar Raut
8. Cheet Lal Prasad son of Ram Chandra Sah
9. Raja Mahto son of Dharbharan Mahto
10. Mohan Dhobi
11. Salauddin Miyan
12. Islam Miyan Respondent nos. 10 to 12 sons of Bengali Manjhi
13. Deolal Mahto son of Alga Mahto
14. Brij Mohan Prasad son of Anchchelal Prasad All resident of Village-
Madhopur, Police Station- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.
15. Babu Ram Thakur son of Ram Lal Thakur Resident of Village- Raghopur,
Police Station- Jamo Bazar, District- Siwan.
16. Lal Bihari Manjhi son of Late Jagdeo Manjhi
17. Janak Manjhi son of Late Mangal Manjhi Both resident of Village-
Madhopur, Police Station- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najmul Hoda, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Binod Prasad Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and I intend
to dispose of the present civil miscellaneous petition at the stage
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
2/11
of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
21.01.2016
passed in Title Suit No. 407 of 2004 by learned Sub
Judge VI, Gopalganj whereby and whereunder the amendment
petition filed by the defendants has been allowed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that
petitioner and respondents 2nd set/respondent nos. 16-17 are
plaintiff before the learned trial court and they have filed a suit
seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over
Schedule II land as mentioned in the plaint and for partition of
Schedule I land and also for a decree of permanent injunction.
The defendants/respondents 1st set appeared and filed their
written statement contesting the suit. On 14.12.2015 the
defendants filed an amendment application seeking amendment
in their written statement. After hearing the parties, the learned
Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj vide order dated 26.01.2016 allowed
the amendment application which is under challenge before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity
to the plaintiffs/petitioner to file any rejoinder. The case record
was earlier pending before the Court of learned Sub Judge-III,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
3/11
Gopalganj but by the administrative order of learned District
Judge, Gopalganj, the suit was transferred to the Court of
learned Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj and the plaintiff was unaware
about this fact. In absence of the plaintiff, before the newly
transferred Court, the defendants filed the amendment
application. When the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about
the transfer of the case and filing of amendment application, he
sought adjournment from the learned trial court and filed a
rejoinder on 27.01.2016 but came to know that the order was
already passed by the learned Sub Judge-VI, Gopalganj on
26.01.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
order is perverse and illegal. The learned trial court was not
justified in allowing the amendment as the amendments are not
of formal nature and would change the nature of claim of the
defendants against the plaintiff. Further not providing an
opportunity of filing rejoinder to the amendment petition is
unjust, improper and violative of principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is nothing
but an abuse of the process of Court and had occasioned in
failure and miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further
submits that moreover by way of amendment, the defendants
have sought to withdraw admission already made in the written
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
4/11
statement and the same cannot be allowed. Thus, the learned
counsel submits that the impugned order be set aside and the
amendment application of the defendants be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendants/respondent 1st set vehemently contends that there is
no infirmity in the impugned order and the learned trial court,
after consideration of facts and circumstances, properly allowed
the amendment application. The amendments are most formal in
nature and it is the settled law that amendments in written
statement are allowed more liberally than the amendments in
plaint. Learned counsel further submits that there is no
withdrawal of any admission and rather some typographical
mistakes had been sought to be corrected in the written
statement. Therefore, the learned trial court has not committed
any error in passing the impugned order and if the amendments
were not allowed, there would have been contradiction and
confusion in the pleadings of the defendants. Amendments were
just and proper and have been rightly allowed by the learned
trial court.
6. Perused the record.
7. It has been contended during arguments by learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is clear admission of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
5/11
defendants that plaintiffs are descendants of Sawarath Dusadh.
According to them, Moti Dusadh has three sons namely
Padarath Dusadh, Sawarath Dusadh and Mani Dusadh but by
amendment they are now withdrawing this admission and now
they are saying that ancestor of the plaintiff was Sadarath
Dusadh who is not son of Moti Dusadh. Now this amendment
has been sought in first line of paragraph no. 16. However, on
perusal of paragraph nos. 13 and 14, it appears that the
defendants have claimed that Moti Dusadh had three sons
namely Padarath Dusadh, Sawarath Dusadh and Mani Dusadh
thereafter it has been submitted by the defendants that Sawarath
Manjhi had two sons Ramlal Manjhi and Ramjiwan Manjhi.
Now in paragraph no. 16 the defendants in unamended written
statement has submitted that Sawarath Dusadh has two sons
namely Shyamlal Manjhi and Doma Manjhi. Apparently, the
persons in paragraph nos. 14 and 16 could not be the same as
the sons of Sawarath Manjhi are different. So Sawarath
Dusadh/Manjhi could be father of either Ramlal Manjhi and
Ramjiwan Manjhi or Shyamlal Manjhi and Doma Manjhi. So
there appears some typographical mistake and according to the
defendants this typographical error is in paragraph no. 16. So, it
cannot be said to be withdrawal of admission. Similarly, in 2 nd
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
6/11
line of paragraph no. 25, the name of Ramchandra Dusadh is
sought to be corrected as Ramyad Dusadh. Now, in subsequent
lines of paragraph no. 25, everywhere Ramyad Dusadh had been
mentioned and averment has been made about Ramyad Dusadh
by denying the claim of the plaintiffs made in paragraph no. 9
wherein also the name of Ramyad Dusadh had been mentioned
and not of Ramchandra Dusadh. Therefore, this amendment
also pertains to correction of typographical error. Further in
paragraph no. 36 there is an averment about purchase of some
property by way of registered sale deed by plaintiff no. 1 but
there is no such claim of plaintiffs in their plaint and the
amendment pertains to some documents which is a registered
sale deed and the defendants want to change plaintiff no. 1 with
defendants no. 1. So this amendment is also not withdrawal of
any admission or changing the nature of suit. Further, the last
amendment is in paragraph no. 37 of the written statement,
which appears to be clarificatory in nature. Therefore, the
amendments sought by the defendants could not be said to be
withdrawal of some admission or being malafide in nature or
causing prejudice to the plaintiff.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd.,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, has summarized the law
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
7/11
on the point of amendment. Paragraph 25 and 70 are extracted
hereinafter for better appreciation of law on this point:
“25. The principles applicable to the
amendments of the plaint are equally
applicable to the amendments of the written
statements. The courts are more generous
in allowing the amendment of the written
statement as question of prejudice is less
likely to operate in that event. The
defendant has a right to take alternative
plea in defense which, however, is subject
to an exception that by the proposed
amendment other side should not be
subjected to injustice and that any
admission made in favor of the plaintiff is
not withdrawn. All amendments of the
pleadings should be allowed which are
necessary for determination of the real
controversies in the suit provided the
proposed amendment does not alter or
substitute a new cause of action on the
basis of which the original lis was raised or
defense taken. Inconsistent and
contradictory allegations in negation to the
admitted position of facts or mutually
destructive allegations of facts should not
be allowed to be incorporated by means of
amendment to the pleadings. The proposed
amendment should not cause such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated by costs. No amendment
should be allowed which amounts to or
relates in defeating a legal right accruing
to the opposite party on account of lapse of
time. The delay in filing the application for
amendment of the pleadings should be
properly compensated by costs and error or
mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
8/11be made a ground for rejecting the
application for amendment of plaint or
written statement. (See South Konkan Distilleries
& Anr. v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors. , (2008) 14
SCC 632) …………………….
70. Our final conclusions may be summed
up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar
against a subsequent suit if the requisite
conditions for application thereof are
satisfied and the field of amendment of
pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The
plea of amendment being barred under
Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived
and hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed
which are necessary for determining the
real question in controversy provided it
does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side. This is mandatory, as is
apparent from the use of the word “shall”,
in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be
allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for
effective and proper adjudication of the
controversy between the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings,
provided
(a) the amendment does not result in
injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any
clear admission made by the party which
confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time
barred claim, resulting in divesting of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
9/11other side of a valuable accrued right (in
certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally
required to be allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim
is sought to be introduced, in which case
the fact that the claim would be time barred
becomes a relevant factor for
consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of
the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide,
or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses
a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment
of pleadings, the court should avoid a
hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily
required to be liberal especially where the
opposite party can be compensated by
costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable
the court to pin-pointedly consider the
dispute and would aid in rendering a more
satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought
to introduce an additional or a new
approach without introducing a time
barred cause of action, the amendment is
liable to be allowed even after expiry of
limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably
allowed where it is intended to rectify the
absence of material particulars in the
plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone
is not a ground to disallow the prayer.
Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
10/11
prayer for amendment could be allowed
and the issue of limitation framed
separately for decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the
nature of the suit or the cause of action, so
as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to
the case set up in the plaint, the amendment
must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to
the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on
facts which are already pleaded in the
plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
liberal in its approach. The court is required to
bear in mind the fact that the opposite party
would have a chance to meet the case set up in
amendment. As such, where the amendment does
not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite
party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage
which it had secured as a result of an admission
by the party seeking amendment, the amendment
is required to be allowed. Equally, where the
amendment is necessary for the court to
effectively adjudicate on the main issues in
controversy between the parties, the amendment
should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder
Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”
9. So far as claim of the plaintiff/petitioner about not
being given opportunity to file rejoinder is concerned, the same
is of no consequence because when the record has been
transferred it was transferred for both the parties if the plaintiff
was not diligent, he cannot blame the Court for his plight.
Moreover, the plaintiff was given opportunity of hearing as it
appears from the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 and so the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.194 of 2016 dt.03-07-2025
11/11
plaintiffs could not have any qualms on this account.
10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and
circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, I do not find
any infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 and hence
the same is affirmed.
11. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed.
12. However, the learned trial court will grant ample
opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut/controvert the amendment
sought to be incorporated by the defendants.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 07.07.2025 Transmission Date N/A
[ad_1]
Source link