Shree Lal Mehta @ Sri Lal Mehta vs Geeta Devi

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.589 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010536552024
======================================================
Shree Lal Mehta @ Sri Lal Mehta Son of Late Rambrich Mahto Resident of
village- Warisaliganj, Mohalla- Devi Asthan, Koyari Tola, Warisaliganj, P.O.
and P.S- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada, PIN- 805130
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Geeta Devi Wife of Janardan Prasad Resident of village- Warisaliganj,
Mohalla- Devi Asthan, Koyari Tola, Warisaliganj, P.O. and P.S- Warisaliganj,
District- Nawada, PIN- 805130
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pushpit Shrivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026

The present petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 02.03.2024, as rectified by the subsequent order
dated 10.05.2024, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VII,
Nawada, in Title Suit No. 500 of 2022, whereby the application
dated 29.08.2023, filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been allowed. The
challenge is, inter alia, on the ground that, by allowing the
proposed amendments, the learned court below has permitted

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.589 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
2/5
the incorporation of a time-barred relief in the plaint and has
also allowed the plaintiff to alter the fundamental nature of the
suit, which is contrary to the settled principles governing
amendment of pleadings.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
amendment allowed by the impugned order, whereby a new
relief seeking a declaration that the sale deed, by virtue of
which title to the suit land was acquired, is void, has been
incorporated, fundamentally alters the nature and character of
the suit as originally instituted. It is further submitted that the
incorporation of such a time-barred relief by way of
amendment is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the impugned
order allowing such amendment is unsustainable in law and is
liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the suit is at its initial stage and the trial has not
commenced as yet. It is further submitted that the amendment
sought is formal in nature and is necessary for the proper and
complete adjudication of the suit. Accordingly, the learned trial

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.589 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
3/5
court has rightly allowed the amendment petition by the
impugned order.
5. After going through the impugned order, it appears
that the question as to whether the registered sale deed dated
06.04.1993, executed in favour of Krishna Prasad and Shree
Lal Mehta, is void or not, has been left open for determination
at the stage of trial on the basis of the evidence and
documents that may be adduced by both parties. It further
appears that the amendment petition has been allowed subject
to payment of costs of Rs. 5,00/- to the petitioner.
6. Other amendments are formal in nature and as per
submission of learned counsel for both the parties, trial has not
commenced till date. So, there is no illegality and impropriety.
7. During course of argument, learned counsel for the
plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgments, passed in the
case of :-
(i) Basavaraj vs. Indira and Ors. , reported
in (2024) 3 SCC 705
(ii) Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander
Bhatia, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87
(iii) Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (Gajrs) Dead through Legal

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.589 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
4/5
Representatives and others, reported in (2020) 7
SCC 366
8. The judgments cited hereinabove are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
as the trial has not yet commenced. Further, the amendment
sought for in Column No. 7 of the amendment petition is to the
effect that the sale deed dated 06.04.1993, executed by
Krishna Prasad in favour of Shree Lal Mehta, in respect of ¼
decimal of Plot No. 346, is void. No relief has been sought for
declaring the entire sale deed as void; rather, the relief is
confined only to the extent of ¼ decimal of Plot No. 346. This
is so because, as submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent, there is a discrepancy in the area mentioned in the
Khatiyan and the map with respect to Plot No. 346, which
came to the knowledge of the plaintiff after institution of the
suit.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the judgments cited hereinabove are not applicable to the
present case. Moreover, the question of limitation has been
kept open by the learned trial court for determination during
the course of trial. Therefore, no prejudice is likely to be

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.589 of 2024 dt.29-10-2026
5/5
caused to the petitioner on account of the incorporation of the
amended facts.
10. Hence, there is no illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and
the instant Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
11. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to
amend his written statement in the light of the amended facts
incorporated in the plaint.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date