Case Background
The dispute started in a title suit filed as Title Suit No. 1134/2013 before the Sub Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur.
In that suit, respondent no. 1 is the plaintiff and the present petitioner is one of the defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking cancellation of certain sale deeds. According to the plaint, those sale deeds had been executed by defendant first set in favour of defendant second set in relation to the suit land.
The suit therefore involves rival claims over landed property at Hajipur and surrounding areas of Vaishali district, with several private parties arrayed as defendants.
Over time, the case proceeded and evidence was recorded. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording evidence of the defendants, including the present petitioner.
At this advanced stage of the trial, on 10.02.2017, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Through this application, the plaintiff sought various amendments in the plaint.
After hearing, the Sub Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur allowed this amendment petition by order dated 02.03.2017, imposing some cost. However, the order allowed the amendments without giving any detailed reasons.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the defendant approached the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1032 of 2017.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court examined whether the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment application of the plaintiff in such a brief, non-speaking manner after commencement of trial.
First, the High Court recorded what amendments the plaintiff wanted to bring into the plaint through the application dated 10.02.2017.
The plaintiff sought to add his present residential address on the first page of the plaint as “Mohalla Krishnapuri, Bagmani, Post Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Gaon, District Vaishali”.
He wanted to delete Khata No. 62 mentioned in paragraph 7 of the plaint and replace it with Khata No. 88.
He proposed to add the words “Lagan/Malgujari” in paragraph 12, seventh line, after the words “16 Dhur”.
He also sought to insert, after paragraph 13, a new clarification regarding certain documents produced by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, these documents suggested that he had filed a case in the survey office. The plaintiff asserted that this was not correct. He maintained that he had not filed any such case, nor signed or executed any Vakalatnama in anyone’s favour. Therefore, he claimed that the decision of the survey office had no binding effect on him.
In paragraph 15 of the plaint, in the last line, he wanted to add a statement that, on perusal of the cadastral survey, the remark column regarding advance payment for the year 1892 showed that the land in question had been put on “bharna” of Rs. 24/-. It was further claimed that the plaintiff had been taking half of the share of that bharna amount from the bharna holder, which, according to him, showed his possession over the suit land.
In paragraph 19, fourth line, he wanted to add, after the word “kewala”, the words “Khata No. 277 and thereafter Khata No. 270 Khesra Number”.
He further requested that in the genealogical table, the description of the son of Girdhari Singh be corrected by deleting the name “Ratan Singh” and inserting “Ratan Mahto” in its place. In paragraph 22, second line, he sought to delete the word “say” occurring after “Kumar Singh”, claiming it was wrongly typed.
The petitioner-defendant filed a rejoinder opposing these amendments. The main objection was that the amendment application had been filed at a very late stage. The plaintiff’s evidence had already closed and the defendant’s evidence was underway.
The defendant argued that all the facts now sought to be introduced were already within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. Therefore, there was no justification in seeking amendments only after completion of the plaintiff’s own evidence.
The defendant also pointed out that even the change of address suggested that the plaintiff had initially given a wrong address at the time of filing the suit. The defendant highlighted that with regard to the alleged case filed by the plaintiff in the municipality, detailed reference had been made in the written statement.
Specifically, in his reply filed on 09.11.2015, in paragraph 47, the defendant had stated that during municipal action, the plaintiff had filed a case which was dismissed after spot inspection, and the order had been brought on record on 12.04.2016.
According to the defendant, despite being aware of these allegations and documents at least from 2015–2016, the plaintiff did not move for amendment until February 2017, that too only after his evidence closed. The defendant therefore alleged that the plaintiff was delaying the disposal of the case and that the amendment was not bona fide.
The petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors., reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705. In that case, the Supreme Court had referred to its earlier decision in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 332.
These judgments clarify that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts allowing amendments after the commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter earlier.
The Supreme Court had also held that the burden lies on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show due diligence. Grant of such amendment is not a matter of right. Courts must examine whether the amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether it would cause prejudice to the opposite party that cannot be compensated in money. Avoiding multiplicity of litigation is important, but not at the cost of unfairness.
On the other side, counsel for respondent no. 1 (the plaintiff) defended the trial court’s order. They argued that there was no infirmity and that the order was passed after due consideration.
They submitted that the amendments were routine in nature. According to them, these amendments did not change the nature of the suit and did not prejudice the defendant. They described the amendments as mainly relating to present address, correction of typographical errors in khata numbers and khesra numbers, clarification regarding the alleged survey case, and correction of ancestors’ names in the genealogy.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court turned to the impugned order itself.
On perusal, the Court found that the trial court’s order allowing amendment was completely bereft of reasons. It merely stated that the documents were perused and then allowed the application subject to cost. The order did not discuss the contents of the amendment application, the stage of the case, or the detailed objections raised by the defendant.
The High Court held that such a cryptic, non-speaking order could not be allowed to stand. Any judicial order, particularly when it affects rights of parties, must disclose reasons.
To support this, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 4664, where it was held that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion”.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. In that case, the Supreme Court held that reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct, and that a mere pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” cannot be treated as valid decision-making.
Referring to these authorities, the High Court emphasised that reasoned judicial orders are of great importance. Reasoning is the soul and heart of justice. Failure to record reasons makes orders unsustainable.
The Court observed that not recording reasons amounts to denial of justice, whether the order is passed by an administrative authority, quasi-judicial body or a judicial authority. All such bodies must assign reasons for their conclusions, more so when it is a judicial authority deciding rights in a civil suit.
In light of this legal position, the High Court held that the order of the Sub Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur, dated 02.03.2017 in Title Suit No. 1134/2013, was unsustainable because it did not record reasons while allowing the amendment.
Importantly, the High Court made it clear that it was not going into the merits of the amendment application itself. It did not decide whether the amendments should or should not be allowed. Instead, it focused only on the procedural defect—that the trial court had failed to give a speaking order.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court.
The Sub Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur, has been directed to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order on the plaintiff’s application dated 10.02.2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. This is to be done within one month from the date the trial court receives or is shown a copy of the High Court’s order.
With these directions, the civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all litigants whose cases are pending in trial courts in Bihar, especially in property and title suits.
First, it reinforces that trial courts cannot pass orders affecting rights of parties without giving proper reasons. Even for something like amendment of pleadings, the court must show that it has applied its mind.
Second, when an amendment is sought after the trial has begun, the trial court must carefully consider whether the party acted with due diligence, whether the amendment is necessary, and whether it will unfairly harm the other side. A simple one-line order is not enough.
Third, parties who feel that an order has been passed against them without reasons now have clear support from the Patna High Court to challenge such orders. Higher courts can set aside such non-speaking orders and send them back for fresh consideration.
Finally, the case shows that the High Court under Article 227 does not itself decide every factual issue. Instead, it ensures that lower courts follow proper procedure and give fair, reasoned decisions.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a trial court allow an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code after commencement of trial through a brief, non-speaking order without recording reasons?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that an order allowing amendment must be a reasoned and speaking order. The impugned cryptic order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision with proper reasons. - Issue: What is the consequence when a judicial order is passed without assigning reasons?
Answer: Such an order is unsustainable in law, as absence of reasons amounts to denial of justice. The order is liable to be set aside and the authority must reconsider the matter by passing a reasoned order.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 705
- M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332
- Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664
- Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1032 of 2017
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Singh v. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 393
Advocates: Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Shashikant Mishra, Advocate for the respondents; Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the respondents; Ms. Minakshi Kumari, Advocate for the respondents.
Nature of the Case: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order in a title suit allowing amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Link to the Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
