Amendments In Connection With Time-Barred Claims Permissible If Special Circumstances Exist: Patna High Court

While dismissing a civil miscellaneous application, a bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court held that the Court has the power to allow amendments in connection with claims that have become time-barred if special circumstances exist and it is in the interest of justice. However, no amendment will be permitted that introduces a new set of ideas to the detriment of any right acquired by any party through the lapse of time.

In this case, the Civil Miscellaneous application was preferred against the order passed by learned Sub-Judge, Bhabhua, Kaimur, Bihar in a Suit wherein petition of the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 herein under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 (Saving of inherent powers of Court) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, who is original plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has title to the suit land and that the defendant had no interest in the land in question.

The suit was based on the fact that the ex-landlord granted the plaintiff a rent receipt and submitted a return in this regard at the time of Zamindari abolition. During the revision and consolidation proceedings, the records of right were prepared in the name of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and acquired ownership rights on the suit land.

However, the Halka Karamchari refused to grant the rent receipt, stating that Register- II was prepared in the name of defendant No. 2 on the basis of the sale deed, and it was then that the plaintiff discovered that the registered sale deed which was executed was a fraudulent document. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's claim, stating that Jamindari was abolished in 1955 and that no question arose for settlement of the land in the plaintiff's name because he was born in 1954. The mutation was granted in the name of defendant no. 2 and the rent receipt was granted in her name, and the plaintiff has no concern with respect to the suit land since the execution of the sale deed was in the year 1970, it was argued. Post which the issues were framed and the plaintiff's evidence was closed.

Following that, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. regarding the alleged sale deed being fraudulent, which was allowed by the trial court.

Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey, argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment was not a typographical mistake but will change the nature of the suit and the same was filed after closing of the evidence of the respondent. He further argued that the impugned order was passed ignoring that the plaintiff has not given any explanation with respect to due diligence.

He submitted that in the proposed amendment it is prayed to in addition to relief that the sale deed may be declared illegal and void but did not disclose the deed of execution.

Mr. Pandey then submitted that the petitioner in his written statement gave the specific assertion about the sale deed, however, despite the knowledge of the same the plaintiff did not file any amendment petition within the prescribed limitation period of three years and the same cannot be done after 6 years which is barred by the law of limitation and such amendment cannot be allowed.

The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the proposed amendment was formal in nature and would not change the nature of the suit. The respondent had already claimed in the plaint that the sale deed was unlawful, and he further asserted that there were no new facts and that the respondent had already provided a sufficient justification for an amendment.

Justice Misra, observed that "the object of the courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. One cardinal principle which can be applied while allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of pleadings is that, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of filing application, then the courts would not be inclined to grant such amendments, if claim made by the applicant in the amendment application was already time barred than no purpose would be achieved by allowing the amendments which has already stood barred by the law of limitation.

The amendment is not permissible if the basic structure of the plaint is changed or the amendment itself is not bona fide."

"It is now well settled that," Justice Mishra continued observing, "the Court has power to allow amendments in connection with claims which had become time-barred, if special circumstances exist and it be in the interest of justice. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time. It cannot be said that a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts."

Referring to the present case, Justice Misra held that "the amendment sought in such circumstances should be considered by considering the plaint has to be read as a whole and not only on the basis of prayer clause. The defendant would not be called upon to answer any new case nor would be caught by surprise, nor did he have to meet a new claim set up for the first time after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is true that the amendment was filed after the commencement of trial but that alone cannot be a ground to reject the application."

While dismissing the application, Justice Misra upheld the impugned order and opined that it cannot be said that the proposed amendment in the application would completely change the colour of the plaint.

Case Title: Surendra Bahadur Singh vs. Yogendra Bahadur Singh Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 673 of 2018

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 15

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment