Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Ram Kumar Sao @ Sahu, Son Of Late Jagdish Sao – Appellant
Versus
Bandhu Sao Son Of Late Khilodhar Sao, Resident Of Village – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Munsif, Chatra, in O.S. No.176 of 2018 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment in written statement has been dismissed by the learned Court.
3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff instituted O.S. No.176 of 2018 for declaration and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and if the plaintiff is found dispossessed from any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, Khas possession be given to the plaintiff, after evicting defendants therefrom. The prayer in the suit is also made that the sale deed No.4650 dated 07.09.2015, sale deed No.3442 dated 14.10.2016 and sale deed No.2226 dated 25.06.1969 are void, illegal, in operative and void ab initio as well as same is not binding upon the plaintiff
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure effective adjudication, provided they do not alter the basic structure of the suit or infringe upon the rights of the opposing party.
A subsequent petition for amendment is barred by res-judicata if a similar petition was previously dismissed without challenge.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement may be allowed if they do not fundamentally alter the suit's nature or cause prejudice, supporting judicial efficiency and justice.
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause injustice to the other party.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
