Patna High Court Nixes Trial Court's Order Dismissing Plea For Amendment Of Plaint In Title Suit, Says Issue Of Limitation Is Disputed

The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an order passed by the Munsif court in a Title Suit, said that the issue of limitation, being disputed, could be addressed after permitting the amendment of the plaint which was sought within the limitation period. 

The high court said that the suit was presently at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and in certain conditions amendment to the plaint can be allowed even after trial commences. It also said that the trial court's finding that allowing the amendments would change the nature of the suit is misconceived, and that the amendments sought seemed to be necessary for proper determination of the real controversy between parties. 

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha in its order observed, “Coming back to the facts of the case, the plaintiff claims that he was not having knowledge and, therefore, the amendment petition has been filed within time after the plaintiff came to know about the fact in the year 2014. On the other hand, the defendants claim that the plaintiff was all along having the knowledge of the sale deeds since 1994. If the contention of the plaintiff is taken to be true, the amendment has been sought within limitation period. In these circumstances, the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for".

"Moreover, from the facts of the case, it is apparent that the amendments have been sought at the stage of evidence of plaintiff, but it is the suit of plaintiff and if any delay is caused, ultimately the plaintiff would be sufferer. It could not be said that allowing the amendment at this stage would cause injustice to the other side since it is still at the stage of start of plaintiff's evidence," the court added.

The petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the trial court, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over the suit land as described in the plaint's schedule. During the plaintiff's evidence stage, after the filing of the examination-in-chief, the plaintiff submitted a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, requesting amendments to certain paragraphs and the relief section of the plaint.

The trial court noted that the proposed amendments could alter the nature of the suit and observed significant delay in filing the amendment petition and denied this request, against which the petitioner moved the high court. 

The Counsel for the Petitioner plaintiff argued that his evidence had only begun, with just the examination-in-chief filed, indicating that the suit remains at an early stage. He contended that the proposed amendments are crucial for resolving the core dispute between the parties and claimed that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's petition, requesting the impugned order be set aside and the petition allowed.

In response, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that the impugned order was sound and raised no legal infirmities. He asserted that the petitioner/plaintiff is attempting to introduce a time-barred claim, pointing out that the sale deeds were executed in 1982, and under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the period to seek a declaration against the sale deed is limited to three years.

The High Court relied on the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. (2006), whereby it was held that the term "commencement of trial" as used in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code should be understood in a limited sense, referring to the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents, and adducing of arguments.

The Court noted, “Admittedly, the present case is at the stage of evidence of plaintiff. However, amendments could be allowed even after commencement of trial under certain conditions...As a general rule, all amendments ought to be allowed which are necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties”.

Further, the Court observed, “As the plaintiff/petitioner has raised a disputed question on the point of limitation, the same could be considered by the learned trial court after framing proper issue with regard to limitation. On this ground, the amendment sought could not be declined.”

Upon examining the amendment application, the Court did not find that allowing the amendment would alter the nature of the suit.

It observed, “The suit has been filed for declaration of title and if the sale deeds are executed in respect of the suit land, without setting aside the sale deeds, there could not be a final determination of title.Hence, the finding of the learned trial court regarding change in the nature of the suit, in my view, is misconceived. If the amendment is not allowed, it will lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. The amendments also appear to be necessary for the purpose of determination of real controversy between the parties,” the Court held.

Concluding that the trial court had committed an error of jurisdiction by rejecting the amendment petition, the Patna High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.

Case Title: Gul Hasan Miyan v Aas Mohammad & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 82

Click Here To Read Judgement