IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1848 of 2008 ----------- Naz Tabassum wife of late Md. Fahimuddin, resident of Mohalla Khankah, Kona Sarai, Town Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda. …. Plaintiff-Petitioner versus Most. Mustari Khatoon, wife of late Fahimuddin, resident of Mohalla Khankah, Kona Sarai, Town Biharsharif,District Nalanda. …Defendant-Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Khurshid Alam, Advocate. For the Opp. Party: M/s Arun Kumar and Bipin Kumar, Advocates. ------ 10/ 03.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 07.08.2008, by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda, rejected the application of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 111 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of 75 paise share in the suit property, which originally belonged to late Md. Fahimuddin, who, according to the plaintiff, had two wives, out of whom the plaintiff was the second wife. Defendant-opposite party contested the suit claiming that late Md. Fahimuddin, the admitted owner of the suit property, left behind only one widow, namely, the defendant-opposite party, whereas, 2 the plaintiff-petitioner was never the wife of late Md. Fahimuddin. 4. After the pleadings were complete, issues were framed and evidence of the parties started. However, before the close of the evidence of the plaintiff, she filed an application dated 27.03.2008 for amendment of the plaint challenging registered deeds of transfer dated 18.12.1988 and 18.09.1997 and for adding a relief for declaring them as fraud, void ab initio and never acted upon. The said application was contested by the defendant, who filed her rejoinder on 19.04.2008. Finally the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 07.08.2008, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below on various grounds, but it is quite apparent that the registered deeds sought to be challenged by the application for amendment were dated 18.12.1988 and 18.09.1997, whereas, the suit was filed about 15 and 6 years thereafter in the year 2003. 6. It further transpires that the defendant had filed her written statement on 10.01.2004, in which the aforesaid two registered deeds had been specifically mentioned, but no step was taken immediately thereafter by the plaintiff to challenge the said documents, rather more than 4 years thereafter on 27.03.2008 an application for amendment of the plaint was filed for addition of the relief mentioned above. 7. The law is well-settled in this regard that the 3 registration of documents are sufficient notice to all with regard to the same and period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for challenging such documents is three years from the date of knowledge. Hence, the relief of declaration of the deeds to be void is clearly barred by limitation. 8. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the written statement was filed on 10.01.2004, in which details of the said registered deeds were mentioned but immediately thereafter or within the period prescribed in the Limitation Act, no such application was filed by the plaintiff and more than 4 years thereafter an application dated 27.03.2008 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint challenging the said documents. 9. In the these circumstances, the relief sought for by the plaintiff is miserably barred by the law of limitation and the learned court below has rightly rejected the said application of the plaintiff-petitioner, specially when no valid or reliable ground or reason for such long delay has been shown. 10. It also transpires from a bare perusal of the plaint, the written statement, the application for amendment, the rejoinder to the said application and the impugned order of the learned court below that the relief sought to be added by the plaintiff by way of amendment is also contradictory in nature as it is claimed that the aforesaid deeds be declared as void ab initio. The law is well- settled that if a document is void ab initio, it does not require any declaration that it is void, rather it has merely to be ignored. In the 4 said circumstances, the plaintiff cannot legally seek any such declaration as sought by way of amendment, rather the court will have to see whether the said documents, which are mentioned by the defendants in their written statement, are void ab initio and are fit to be ignored as per the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )