In Amit Kumar & Anr. vs. Rima Devi & Ors., (2026), Patna High Court's Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered a judgement dated January 8, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"Considering the facts of this case and after going through the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it clearly transpires that the Impugned Order pertaining to allowing of the proposed amendment Nos.2, 3 & 3 is not permissible. Accordingly, to that extent proposed amendment will not be allowed by the trial Court and if it has been allowed it would be struck of. 8. So far as other amendments concerned in Para 1 and last paragraph ( 04) are concerned, they are permitted to be amended as they are not changing the nature of the suit. 9. Accordingly, the instant Civil Misc. No. 821 of 2019 stands disposed of."
The Civil Misc. application was filed against the order dated April 28, 2015, passed by Sub Judge IX, Motihari in a Title Suit of 2014 by which the Court has allowed amendment petition in a mechanical way which was filed by the respondents/plaintiff.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent–plaintiff had instituted the Title Suit of 2014 before the trial court seeking a decree for specific performance of contract. Subsequently, the respondent–plaintiff filed an amendment application, which was allowed by the trial court. An amendment application proposed five amendments (numbered as paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 3 and 4) in the plaint.
By inserting an amendment after paragraph No. 10(क) of the plaint, the respondent–plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the suit property is joint family property of the defendants first set. Learned counsel submits that all the proposed amendments were allowed by the impugned order dated April 28, 2015.
The original suit being one for specific performance of contract, the amendments sought for and allowed by the impugned order clearly alter the nature of the suit, which is impermissible in law. It was further submitted that in a suit for specific performance, relief for declaration of a judgment or decree as null and void cannot be claimed. The proper course available to the respondent–plaintiff would be to institute a separate and independent suit for such declaratory reliefs.
The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the authority reported in the case of Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. Kiran Construction Company & Ors. , reported in 2008 (13) SCC 658 in which it is held that“A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Ss. 15(a),6 and 19 – Necessary and proper parties – who are – Person not a party to sale agreement but who had acquired an interest in the subject matter of sale agreement – Amendment to change suit for specific performance into title suit-- Impermissibility – Suit filed by respondent for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property wherein appellant was not a party, sought to be amended to change its nature by converting in into a suit for a declaration of title, by adding the name of appellant and that the consent decree obtained by appellant was not binding on respondent – Amendment allowed by Gigh Court holding appellant to be a party to the suit – Held, High Court erred in law in allowing the amendment and adding appellant as a party to the suit – Appellant being a third party to the agreement does not fall within the category of "parties” to the agreement” – Appellant was not also not a persons claiming under it by subsequent title – Amendment of suit and addition of party leading to change its character, held, not permissible in law – Further held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proper course open for respondent would be to challenge the consent decree in a separate suit for declaration that the decree is not binding on him.”
He also placed reliance in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira and others, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705, vide para 13 to 16, which reads as under:-“ 13. Initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible.14. This Court in Revajeetu case [Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs.Narayanaswamy and sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84:(2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] enumerated the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while dealing with an application for amendment. One of the important factor is as to whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of giling the application. 15. If the amendment is allowed in the case in hand, certainly, prejudice will be cause to the appellant. This is one of the important factors to be seen at the time of consideration of any application for amendment of pleadings. Any right accrued to the opposite party cannot be taken away on account of delay in filing the application.16. In the case in hand, the compromise decree was passed on 14.10.2004 in which the plaintiffs were party. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 8.2.2010 i.e. 5 years and 03 months after passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment. The limitation for challenging any decree is three years( reference can be made to Article 59 in Part IV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963). A fresh suit to challenge the same may not be maintainable. Meaning thereby, the relief sought by way of amendment was time-barred.
As with the passage of time, right had accrued in favour of the appellant with reference to challenge to the compromise decree, the same cannot be taken away. In case the amendment in the plaint is allowed, this will certainly cause prejudice to the appellant. What cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.”
The counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner had already received the cost awarded by the Impugned Order and virtually he has acquiesced his right to object the Impugned Order.
No comments:
Post a Comment