Even A Time-Barred Claim Can Be Introduced By Amendment If Trial Hasn't Commenced: Patna High Court
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court, while disposing of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order passed by the Munsif, upheld the order allowing an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amending the plaint, while acknowledging that although the amendment appeared to introduce a time-barred claim, considering the early stage of the trial, the effect could be as though the amended plaint were the original, as the trial had not yet commenced.
A single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha observed, “From the facts of the case, though it appears that a time barred claim/relief is being sought to be introduced by way of amendment, considering the initial stage of the suit, the effect could be as if the amended plaint is the original plaint since the trial has not commenced.”“In such circumstances, the defendants could always raise the issue of limitation. Moreover, the defendants are imputing knowledge to the plaintiff in the year 1983, 2013 and 2016, which is denied by the plaintiff. It is to be borne in mind that rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice and a party could not be refused just relief because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure,” Justice Jha added.
In the factual matrix of the case, the plaintiff had filed a title suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession for Schedule 1 & 2 lands. The title suit was initially decreed ex parte. Defendant No. 2 then filed a miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed by the trial court. The defendants appealed the dismissal under Order 43 Rule 1(d), and the appellate court set aside the ex parte judgement and decree. The amendment petition allowed by the trial court was the subject of the present challenge before the High Court.
The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the trial court acted illegally by passing the impugned order in disregard of the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. He further contended that the trial court overlooked the fact that respondent no. 1 was fully aware of the registered sale deed from the time of its execution and registration. He argued that respondent no. 1's attempt to introduce a time-barred claim should have been rejected by the trial court, as a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by the law of limitation.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent maintained that the impugned order was free of any infirmity and required no interference. He argued that amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, and at the outset of the suit, all amendments should be permitted.
The Court noted that all necessary amendments could be permitted to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
It stated, “though it could be said that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has been negligent and his careless and casual approach allowed certain rights to be accrued in favour of the defendants/petitioners, it should always be the endeavour of the Court to make efforts for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and towards these efforts, the Court could grant leave to amend the pleading, unless the same appears to be malafide or deprives other-side a valid defence.”
The Court further emphasised that if an amendment enables a more accurate consideration of the dispute and contributes to a more satisfactory decision, it should be allowed.
Given that the trial was in its early stages, with issues yet to be framed and the matter of limitation still open, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order in question, except to modify it by imposing a cost.
The Court affirmed the order passed in the Title Suit, subject to the payment of Rs. 25,000/- by the contesting respondent to the petitioners on the first date before the trial court after the receipt or production of this judgement.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Mohan Sahani & Ors. v Jagan Sahani & Ors.
LL Citation: