SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Dhanoki Mahto @ Dhanuki Mahto son of late Duar Mahto - Petitioner 
Vs.
Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia, son of late Banshidhar Rajgarhia @Banshilal Rajgarhia - Respondent 
C.M.P. No. 341 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

Amendments to pleadings should not change the fundamental nature of the case, and withdrawing clear admissions is impermissible under the CPC.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Petition for amendment rejected as it was deemed to change the nature of the suit - Court emphasized that amendments should not alter the fundamental nature of the case and should be allowed liberally if they are formal in nature. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 16)

(B) Admissions in pleadings - The court held that withdrawing a clear admission made in the written statement is not permissible, especially when it forms the basis of the suit. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Due diligence - The court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the amendment petition at a belated stage, which is a requirement under the CPC. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to amend a written statement in a title suit regarding property rights, claiming that a previously admitted fact about a landlord's status was incorrect. The amendment was rejected by the lower court, leading to this petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the lower court's order, affirming that the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit and lacked due diligence.

Issues: The main issues were whether the amendment would change the nature of the suit and if the petitioner exercised due diligence in filing the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that amendments should not alter the fundamental nature of the case and emphasized the importance of maintaining admissions made in pleadings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.Nos. 1 and 8 to 10, who are the proforma opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2023, passed in Original Suit No. 128 of 2012, by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Giridih, by which, the petition dated 27.07.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

3. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Title Suit No. 128 of 2012 was instituted by Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia in the court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Giridih against 13 defendants including this petitioner, in which, the plaintiff has sought relief for declaration and confirmation of his indefeasible and subsisting right, title and possession on and upon suit properties which is described in Item No. I and II of Schedule-A of the plaint i.e. the land measuring an area about 7.45 acres in Survey Plot No. 1028/1063 under Khata No. 28 in Mauja Jaruadih and three rooms in Plot No. 1029 under Khata No. 4 of Majua Jaruadih. He submits that further prayer was made in the suit for a decree for demolition and destruction of the structure and rooms described in Item No. 2 of Schedule-A i.e. and cost has also been prayed. He submits that on receiving notice, the defendants have appeared and file their written statement on behalf of 1 to 4 and 9 to 13, wherein they have specifically denied the allegations made in the complaint. He further submits that in the written statement, it has been pleaded that the right and title they have acquired through Hemraj Mahto. He then submits that the suit has been proceeded further and both the sides have examined their witnesses and on 27.07.2022, a petition under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC has been filed for amendment in the written statement to the effect that Hemraj Mahto was Thekedar of ex-landlord Bansidhar Rajgaria and, who filed return at the time of vesting of Jamindari in compensation case No. 238 of 1956-57. He submits that only that was sought to be amended in the written statement and the same is formal in nature, in spite of that the learned court has been pleased to reject the same considering that the nature of the suit will be changed. He further submits that the law is well settled that the court should remain liberal in allowing the formal nature of amendment.

4. Learned counsel submits that this court has also considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter in the case of Manjur Mian @ Md. Manjur Alam Versus Mustakim Mian & Ors. in C.M.P. No. 693 of 2023 and in the case of Kole Oraon & Ors. Versus Lodha Oraon & Ors. in C.M.P. No. 1355 of 2023, decided by the judgment dated 15.01.2025 and 24.03.2025 respectively. He submits that in the case of Kole Oraon & Ors. (supra), the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. has been considered by the court, wherein the rules of procedure have also been considered and the amendment petition has been allowed. He then submits that the nature of the suit will not be changed if the amendment is allowed, in spite of that the learned court has rejected the said prayer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and submits that the nature of the suit has been tried to be changed. He draws the attention of the court towards the written statement, filed by the defendants and submits that in the written statement, it has been mentioned that Hemraj Mahto was the landlord, whereas in the amendment petition, the said admission has been tried to be changed by way of saying that he was only the Thekedar of the landlord and that too has been tried to be done at the belated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top