The Patna High Court, in response to a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, overturned the order dated 08.09.2016 issued by the learned Munsif in the Title Suit.

The Munsif had rejected the plaintiff/petitioner's petition dated 04.08.2016, which sought an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court held that the issue of limitation, which was in dispute, could be addressed once the amendment requested was granted.

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the trial court, had initiated a suit seeking a declaration of title over the land specified in the plaint's schedule. As the case reached the stage of the plaintiff's evidence and examination-in-chief, the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. This petition requested changes to paragraphs 1, 8, 13, and the relief section of the plaint. The learned trial court noted that the proposed amendments could alter the nature of the suit and observed that the petition for amendment had been filed after a significant delay.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the plaintiff's evidence is still in its early stages, with only the examination-in-chief completed. He contended that since the suit is at a preliminary stage, the proposed amendments are essential for addressing the real issues between the parties. The Counsel claimed that the trial court's rejection of the amendment petition was erroneous and urged that the impugned order be set aside to allow the petition for amendment to proceed.

The Court clarified that the term "commencement of trial" in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code should be interpreted narrowly to refer to the final hearing, witness examination, document filing, and argument presentation. Since the present case is still at the evidence stage for the plaintiff, the trial has not yet reached its final phase. The Court noted that amendments can be permitted even after the commencement of trial under specific conditions.

The Court further observed that if the plaintiff's assertion is correct, the amendment was requested within the limitation period. Given this, the dispute over the limitation issue could be addressed after the amendment is granted. The Court concluded that because the plaintiff/petitioner has raised a contested question regarding limitation, it should be examined by the learned trial court following the framing of an appropriate issue related to limitation. Therefore, the request for amendment should not be denied.

The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the learned trial court committed an error of jurisdiction when it refused to allow the amendment petition and rejected the same.

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

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Case No.: Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1513 of 2016

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Mishra