[O.6 R.1 CPC] Defendant Barred From Belatedly Amending Pleadings To Fill Up Lacunae When Confronted With Document Recorded In Evidence: Patna HC

The Patna High Court, in its deliberation on the proviso to Order VI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, has noted that if the defendants are confronted with a document which emerges during the presentation of their evidence, they will not be grated a right to amend their pleadings to rectify deficiencies in their case.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha presiding over the case observed, “If certain document has come during the evidence being recorded for the defendants and the defendants are confronted with the same, it does not give right to the defendants to amend their pleadings in order to fill up the lacunae in his case. Moreover, the amendment has been moved at quite belated stage and proviso to Order VI Rule 1 clearly bars such amendment after commencement of trial and when no due diligence has been shown.”

The above ruling came in a petition filed for quashing the order passed by the Sub Judge-V, Madhepura in a Title Suit, by which the Sub Judge had dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement of the defendant no.1.

According to the facts of the case, the plaintiffs initiated a Title Suit, to which defendant no.1 responded by submitting a written statement. The crux of the plaintiffs' claim rested on an agreement of sale, which defendant no.1 contested.

During defendant no.1's cross examination as a witness for the defence on May 9th, 2016, it came to light that the document presented to him as the agreement of sale differed from the one he had signed and handed over to his brother. The document presented during cross-examination pertained to the sale of 10 Kathas of land only, unlike the one he had originally executed.

Upon realizing this discrepancy, defendant no.1 sought to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). However, the application for amendment was contested by the plaintiffs in their rejoinder. Subsequently, the Subordinate Court dismissed defendant no.1's application following a hearing.

The defendant no.1 appealed this decision before the High Court, challenging the dismissal of his application for amendment.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that if the court deems it necessary to determine the true dispute between the parties, an amendment should be permitted at any stage. Failure to allow such an amendment would result in irreparable harm to defendant no.1/petitioner.

Furthermore, the counsel contended that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that defendant no.1 had filed a written statement denying any agreement to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. According to the petitioner's counsel, it was defendant no.2 who entered into the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. Defendant no.2 subsequently requested defendant no.1 to sign the agreement, claiming that he required funds and intended to sell his share of 10 kathas of land. As a result, defendant no.1 only signed the first page of the agreement.

The counsel emphasized that the agreement to sell was made solely between defendant no.2 and the plaintiffs, not involving defendant no.1 directly. Therefore, defendant no.1's denial of any agreement with the plaintiffs should be understood in this context. When presented with the agreement, defendant no.1 sought to clarify the circumstances and proposed an amendment to his written statement. However, these crucial details were allegedly overlooked by the learned Subordinate Court.

Having perused the records, especially the impugned order, the Court said that it did not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order or improper exercise of jurisdiction.

The Court observed, “It is on record that the amendment petition was moved after fifteen years when the evidence of the parties, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been completed and the matter was at the stage of argument. Further, it could be observed that the said amendment was made only on the ground that defendants were asked certain questions and some documents were put up before him for his response then only he has moved before the Court for amendment of the written statement.”

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is affirmed,” the Court concluded while dismissing the petition.

Advocate For The Petitioner: Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra

Advocate For The Respondents: None

Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1023 Of 2017

Case Title: Shibjee Pd. Singh V Manju Devi & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 29

Click Here To Read The Judgement