Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Patna High Court addressed a critical procedural issue in a probate case. The dispute involved whether a party could be allowed to amend a petition after the trial had already begun. The petitioner in this case challenged an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jamui, which had permitted the respondent to amend paragraph 8 of the original probate petition.
The petitioner argued that three witnesses had already been examined, and allowing such an amendment at this stage would unfairly benefit the respondent. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & Ors., the petitioner claimed that amendments after the commencement of the trial should generally not be allowed unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The petitioner also emphasized that no opportunity had been given to file an additional written statement in response to the changes.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the amendment was only meant to clarify certain facts and did not introduce any new defense. The need for clarification arose after some sellers (vendors) made adverse claims in their written statements. The amendment was intended to confirm the petitioner’s residence in her matrimonial home and that she continued to deal with properties that were also part of the Will.
To support his case, the respondent cited two key Supreme Court rulings: State of Bihar v. Modern Tent House (2017) and Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2018). These judgments highlighted that amendments which only elaborate existing defenses, do not change the nature of the case, and do not prejudice the opposing party can be allowed even during the trial.
The Patna High Court acknowledged that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code prohibits amendments after trial commencement unless the party can prove that the amendment couldn’t have been made earlier despite due diligence. While the respondent failed to show such diligence, the Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not prevent fair adjudication of real disputes.
Hence, the Court upheld the lower court’s decision but imposed a condition: the respondent must pay ₹10,000 to the petitioner. Additionally, the trial court must provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the amendment appropriately.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment highlights a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach by the Patna High Court. Rather than strictly adhering to procedural bars, the Court prioritized substantive justice by focusing on the real issues in the probate matter. It sends a clear message that minor procedural lapses can be overlooked if they do not cause real prejudice and the opposing party is compensated and allowed a fair opportunity to respond.
For the general public, especially those involved in property or inheritance matters, this judgment underscores that amendments in court proceedings—even during trial—can be permitted if they aim to clarify rather than introduce new claims. However, such leniency will come with conditions, including costs and procedural safeguards.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether an amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?
- Yes, but only if it does not introduce new facts or prejudice the other party, and suitable costs and safeguards are imposed.
- Whether failure to show due diligence bars post-trial amendments?
- Generally yes, but the Court may relax this if real controversy between parties is at stake and the other side can be compensated.
- Final Decision by the Court:
- The amendment was upheld, subject to payment of ₹10,000 to the petitioner and opportunity for the petitioner to respond in trial court.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7251 of 2008.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Modern Tent House & Anr., (2017) 8 SCC 567.
- Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87.
Case Title
Shipu Devi vs. Piyush Kumar
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 336 of 2024
Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 37
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha and Ms. Seema — for the petitioner
- Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh — for the respondent
Link to Judgment
NDQjMzM2IzIwMjQjMSNO-ESH8lWP6wzo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
