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) 866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Nishi Agrawal, wife of Shri Vinit Agrawal and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Singh, son of Lal Narayan Singh - Opposite Party 
C.M.P. No. 1069 of 2024
Decided On : 17-03-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate

Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed for effective adjudication unless they cause injustice to the other party.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The petitioners sought amendment to the plaint to address subsequent events related to a forged sale deed. The trial court rejected the amendment, which was deemed erroneous as the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication. The court emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed unless they cause injustice. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 11)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - The court reiterated that amendments are allowed to determine the real question in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party. (Paras 4, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their title over certain properties against a defendant who produced a forged sale deed. The Deputy Commissioner annulled the deed, but this was challenged in a higher court, leading to the current petition for amendment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and did not cause prejudice to the defendant. The trial court's order was set aside, allowing the amendment with a cost imposed on the petitioners.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of the amendment for proper adjudication and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy and emphasized a liberal approach towards amendments unless they cause injustice.

Result: The order dated 30.09.2024 was set aside, and the amendment was allowed, subject to costs.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-XII, Ranchi in M.C.A No.839 of 2024 arising out of Original (Title) Suit No.750 of 2019 whereby the petition dated 21.06.2024 filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint due to subsequent events has been rejected.

3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on 17.12.2019 the petitioners instituted a suit being Original (Title) Suit No.750 of 2019 with a prayer for declaration of their absolute right, title and interest over the suit property detailed in schedule-A and schedule-B and for restraining the defendant from disturbing their peaceful possession.

4. He submits that the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners as described in the plaint inter-alia is that a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2016 the plaintiff/ petitioner no.1 purchased a piece of land measuring eight decimals of M.S.Plot No.82 and area of 16.86 decimals of land of M.S. Plot No.83, Mouza Morabadi from one Hari Krishna Bajaj and like-wise, the properties have also been purchased. He submits that the defendant has produced forged sale deed in said proceeding being M-578 of 2017 alleging that he purchased the land from Mrs. Kalyani Chatterjee vide sale deed dated 17.05.2010 whereas Kalyani Chatterjee died as far back as on 19.09.1989 itself, and therefore, the plaintiffs/petitioners contended that the said sale deed produced by the defendant before the S.D.M, Ranchi is a forged document. He submits that in paragraph 12 of the plaint, the statement of the suit property which has been soled by the sale deed has been disclosed. He further submits that the plaintiff /petitioners have filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi with regard to fraudulent transaction by way of sale seed which was registered as Fraudulent Registration Case No.28 of 2018-19 against the defendant for annulment of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 allegedly executed by Kalyani Chatterjee, although she died in 1989 itself. After adjudication and by an order dated 8.2.2021 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No.28 of 2018-19 annulled the same deed dated 18.05.2010 executed in favour of the defendant. Being dissatisfied with that the defendants have moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1491 of 2021 which was allowed by the order dated 22.4.2024 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has got no power to annul the registered sale deed and he submits that thereafter the petition has been filed for amendment to the effect that in paragraph no.17 at page no.8, in place of plaintiff, the word ‘plaintiffs’ may kindly be allowed to be added and further prayer was made being relief no.’A’, i.e., words “be deleted” be deleted and substituted with the line: “and, as such, Title is not or any way affected by the absolutely forged, null, manufactured and void ab initio deed of sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered as Deed No.11669 entered in Book No.1 Volume No.502 pages 101 to 136 of the office of the District Sub Registrar at Ranchi is in favour of the defendants” and further at page-8 of para-17 in relief (b) to add the word: “If they are found dispossessed from the suit property”. He submits that the learned court has erroneously rejected the said petition. He relied in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 and refers to paragraph no.71 of the said judgment which is as under:

71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfi

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