The court ruled that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed when necessary for the effective adjudication of controversies, provided they do not unjustly prejudice the other party.

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. Sa