LexSHIV GOPAL SAH@SHIV GOPAL SAHU versus SITA RAM SARAUGI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SHIV GOPAL SAH@SHIV GOPAL SAHU ~ v. SITA RAM SARAUGI AND ORS. MARCH 30, 2007 B [ASHOK BHAN AND V.S. SIRPURK.AR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 6 Rule 17-Amendment application-Permissibility of-Eviction suit-Plea of tenant that he became c the owner by sale deed in his favour-Amendment of plaint-Claim regarding the declaration of sale deed being bogus and ineffective document-Held : Not permissible since the claim was ti!fle barred-Delay was of 15 years without any explanation-Original plaintiff and co-plaintiffs-new transferees were complacently negligent, and as such plaintiff lacked bonafides. D In 1986, the original plaintiff filed suit for eviction and impleaded the original defendant. Original defendant pleaded that since he had purchased > the suit property along with other part of the property by sale deed dated ;.- 4.10.1985, he was the full owner of the entire house including the suit property. In 1991, the suit was converted into a Title Suit and the plaintiff was to effect E the necessary amendments. However, plaintiff did not amend the suit. Original defendant died and the present petitioner-defendant was impleaded. In 1997, during the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff sold the suit property in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4, who were added as the co-plaintiffs. On 11.12.2004, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendments to the plaint. Trial court allowed the application. High F Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. By way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time has been allowed by this Court. However, for that there had to be a G valid basis made out in the application and first of all there had to be bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs and a reasonable explanation for the delay. It is also true that the amendments can be introduced at any stage of the suit, however, when by that amendment an apparently time barred claim is being ~ introduced for the first time, there could have to be some explanation and H 568 • I SHIV GOP AL SAH@ SHIV GOPAL SAHU"· SIT A RAM SARA UGI 569 secondly, the plaintiff would have to show his bonafuies, particularly because A such claims by way of an amendment would have the effect of defeating the rights created in the defendant by lapse of time. [Para 12) (573-D-E] 2.1. Having gone through the amendment application carefully there is no explanation whatsoever for this towering delay. Some explanation is expected, atleast regarding the delay since the delay was very substantial The B whole amendment application, when carefully scanned, does not show a_.y explanation whatsoever. This negligent complacency on the part of the plaintiffs would not permit them to amend the plaint, more particularly when the claim has, apparently, become barred by time. [Para 11) [573-C) 2.2. The defendant having set up a rival title on the basis of sale deed C dated 4.10.1985 the plaintiff was bonnd to amend his pleadings if he wanted to challenge~ the said sale deed to be ineffective and incapable of creating a valid title in favour of the defendant. It completely beats as to why the plain~iff remained complacently negligent right from 1987 in case of original plaintiff and after 1997 in case of co-plaintiffs. On the top of it when the amendment D application is seen, it is sadly silent regarding any explanation as to why all these steps were not taken after a long period right from 1987 till ~be amendment application is made on 11.12.2004 seeking a declaration that is bogus and did not create any title in favour of the original defendant. Having not challenged the sale deed dated 4.10.1985, the plaintiff could not lead evidence regarding the circumstances under which that sale deed came into existence which facts they would be entitled now if the amendments were to be allowed. That would be completely different from their preliminary task of proving a better •itle to the property. [Para 15) [574-C-E] E 2.3. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted at this stage to introduce a time F barred claim under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where a complacent negligence was found on the part of the plaintiffs apart from the towering delay of more than 15 years. Thus, the application for amendiµent is dismissed and the orders of the High Court as well as the trial court are set aside. [Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.