Patna HC Upholds Amendment Seeking To Void 1993 Sale Deed As To ¼ Decimal Of Plot 346, Leaves Limitation For Trial

In Title Suit No. 500 of 2022, the plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.

The Sub-Judge allowed the application by order dated 2 March 2024, as rectified on 10 May 2024, subject to costs of ₹500.

The amendment sought, among other things, a declaration that a sale deed dated 6 April 1993 was void to the extent of ¼ decimal of Plot No. 346.

The defendant challenged the order, arguing that the amendment introduced a time-barred relief and changed the suit’s fundamental nature.

The trial had not commenced.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings.

The court upheld the amendment in the circumstances before it, noting that the trial had not commenced, the amendment concerning the sale deed was limited to ¼ decimal of Plot No. 346, and the question of limitation remained open for determination at trial.

The plaintiff cited Basavaraj v. Indira, (2024) 3 SCC 705; Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87; and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366; the High Court held those decisions inapplicable to the facts of this case.

The High Court found that the trial court had not determined whether the 1993 sale deed was void; it had left that question for decision at trial on the evidence and documents produced by the parties.

The amendment did not seek to invalidate the entire deed, but only its effect concerning ¼ decimal of the plot, in light of an alleged discrepancy between the area shown in the khatiyan and the map that the plaintiff said was discovered after filing suit.

Because the trial had not commenced and limitation remained open for determination, the court found no illegality, impropriety, or prejudice to the defendant from allowing the amendment.

It left the limitation question for determination during trial and granted the petitioner liberty to amend his written statement in response to the amended plaint.