Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Ram Autar Mahto and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sam Dayal Mahto and ors. - Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No. 694 of 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing under article 227 for order setting aside (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments for formal amendments in the plaint (Para 3) |
| 3. opposition to amendment citing nature change (Para 4) |
| 4. court's dismissal based on nature change (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No.127 of 2016 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiff in the suit and the said suit was instituted for right title and interest over the suit land and if the dispossession is found to put on the possession. He submits that in the course of the proceeding, the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 has been filed to amend the plaint to the effect in paragraph No.12 in place of sale deed No.1040 to replace from 10040 and in Schedule A of the plaint Plot No.442 sought to be replaced by 542 and further changing the area of the land from 1.42 acres to 1.10 acres in Plot No.542. He submits that is a formal amendment and the learned Court has wrongly dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that if the said amendment will be allowed then the entire nature of the suit will be changed.
5. Admittedly the nature of the suit is made for right title and interest over the suit land and the amendment was sought to change the sale deed number as well as plot number and the area which clearly suggests that if the amendment will be allowed then the entire nature of the suit will be changed. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Court, as such this petition is dismissed.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings cannot fundamentally change the nature of the suit; sufficient diligence is required in filing such applications.
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.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
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.
A subsequent petition for amendment is barred by res-judicata if a similar petition was previously dismissed without challenge.
Amendments under Civil Procedure Code should be allowed to resolve real questions in controversy, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause undue hardship to the other party.
The court emphasized the need to provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to lead evidence, overriding procedural closure to ensure justice in light of changed circumstances.
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
