"Legal Battle Over Common Passage: A Fight for Property Rights"



Introduction

A property dispute in Munger, Bihar, led to a legal battle that reached the Patna High Court. The case involved a disagreement over the use of a common passage, with the petitioner, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, seeking legal intervention against alleged interference by the respondents, Subodh Kumar and others. The dispute highlights key legal principles regarding property rights, amendments to legal pleadings, and procedural diligence in litigation.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, purchased a portion of a property from the father of the respondents. Along with the purchase, he was granted the right to use a common passage, which provided access to his property. However, conflicts arose when the respondents allegedly obstructed his use of the passage. They also attempted to remove essential drainage and sanitation connections linked to the petitioner’s property.

To safeguard his rights, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha filed a suit seeking:

  • A declaration that the respondents had no right to interfere in the use of the common passage.
  • A permanent injunction preventing the respondents from demolishing drainage structures or causing disturbances.

The case, filed in 2002, dragged on for several years. Then, in 2019, the respondents filed an application to amend their written statement, which triggered a fresh legal challenge.

Key Legal Issue: Amendment of Pleadings

Sixteen years after the original suit was filed, the respondents sought to amend their written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They wanted to introduce new details about the history of the property and the construction of drainage systems, which were not included in their original statement.

The petitioner objected to this amendment, arguing that:

  1. The amendment was filed too late—after trial had already begun.
  2. It was an attempt to fill gaps in the respondents’ defense and delay proceedings.
  3. The respondents failed to prove that they exercised “due diligence” in discovering these facts earlier.

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedents, including:

  • Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008) – which emphasized that amendments after the commencement of the trial should not be allowed unless the party proves due diligence.
  • Lal Babu Rai v. Ramgaya Rai (2014) – which reinforced the rule that amendments should not be used to cover up weaknesses in pleadings.

The Lower Court’s Decision

Despite these arguments, the Munsif-II Court in Munger allowed the amendment. The lower court reasoned that the proposed changes were minor and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the case. It also stated that the amendment was necessary for a fair adjudication of the dispute.

Patna High Court’s Judgment

Aggrieved by the lower court’s order, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court, arguing that the amendment should not have been allowed. After reviewing the case, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the lower court’s order, stating:

  1. Jurisdictional Error by the Lower Court – The lower court failed to examine whether the respondents demonstrated due diligence before seeking an amendment, as required by Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
  2. Unjustified Delay – The amendment was sought 16 years after the filing of the suit, without any valid reason for the delay.
  3. Malafide Intent – The court observed that the amendment appeared to be an attempt to prolong the case and create procedural hurdles rather than to clarify genuine legal points.

Thus, the High Court disallowed the amendment, ensuring that the case would proceed without unnecessary delays.

Conclusion

This case underscores important legal principles regarding property rights, procedural fairness, and the timing of amendments in litigation. The judgment reinforces the idea that courts must scrutinize attempts to amend pleadings after the trial has begun, especially when such amendments could be used to delay justice.

For property owners, the case serves as a reminder to clearly establish rights in sale deeds and legal agreements to avoid lengthy legal disputes in the future. It also highlights the importance of timely legal action and diligence in presenting claims and defenses in court.

Read the full judgement Below;