Amendments to pleadings in civil suits are permissible if they clarify issues without altering the essence of the suit; limitation concerns arise only if fraud or illegality is established.

… …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Housing Board : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate ------

08/ 11.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The defendant/ petitioner has preferred the instant civil misc. petition against the order dated 24.08.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Ranchi, in Original Suit No.775 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit for the following relief(s):-

(a) A decree for Specific Performance of Contract dated

08.04.2009 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant be directed to execute and registered the deed of Lease/ allotment in favour of the plaintiff failing which the same may be executed and registered through the process of court on receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- and also appropriate labhansh to the Board.

(b) A temporary injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant not to dispossess him either personally or through their labourer or agent.

(c) Cost of the suit be awarded.

(d) Any other relief or reliefs the plaintiff be found entitled be also awarded.

3. It is not in dispute that flat being MRA-11 measuring an area of 3 decimal situated at Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi was allotted in the name of one Rambriksh Sahu vide Letter dated

10.06.1992 and he died in the year 2010.

4. Plaintiff(s) claims that an agreement of sale was executed by the registered power of attorney holder of Rambriksh Sahu on 08.04.2009 by his attorney / defendant no.5 with respect to the suit property, whereas the petitioner /defendant claims himself to be the nephew of Rambriksh Sahu and that perpetual deed of lease had been executed in his favour vide Registered Deed No.3024 dated 12.05.2016 by the Housing Board.

5. The plaintiff filed the amendment application and the same has been allowed and aggrieved by the same, the instant civil misc. petition has been filed.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment amounts to abrogation of original plaint as it seeks to introduce altogether 41 amendments in the plaint. Some of the amendments are time-barred and some in effect operates to withdrawal of admissions made in the plaint.

7. Specific reference is made to amendment as prayed for in Para Nos. 8, 39 and 41 which read as under:-

(viii) That in the Plaint at Page-3 in Para-5 in the 1^st line from the above, the name “Neelam Singh” be deleted and in the 2^nd Line after the name “Rambriksh Sahu” following be added:-

“in favour of Neelam Singh, the Attorney Holder paid remaining amount of Rs.45,584/- out of said initial payment vide Book No.492, Receipt No.578128 dated 29.06.1993 issued by Defendant No.1”

(xxxix) That in the Plaint at Page-12 in Para 29 after Relief (a), new Relief (a/1) be added:-

“(a/1) It be declared that the Deed of Perpetual lease dated 12.05.2016 executed and registered by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of Defendant No.6 is ab-initio illegal, null and void, inoperative and fit to be cancelled”.

(XLI) That in the Plaint at Page 13, below description of suit property in the Schedule, Schedule-B be added which is the premium paid by the defendant no. 5 to the Board in the name of allottee.”

8. It is argued that as far as the amendment in para 29 of the plaint is concerned, it is time barred. Written statement was filed in 2018 making specific averment that a perpetual lease had been executed in favour of the Petitioner by the Housing Board. Period of l