IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.888 of 2025

1.Sadhu Hansda, S/o Dhuru @ Dhuru @ Dudu Hansda

2.Sumit Hansda, S/o Late Mahanto Hansda

3.Rajen Soren

4.Suresh Soren 5.Rajesh Soren

3 to 5 are sons of Late Kandan Soren All R/o Village :- Bonkata, PO- Amba, PS- Kundahit, District- Jamtara.

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Babudhan Marandi 2. Subodhan Marandi Both sons of Late Sidam @ Dhonu Marandi and R/o Village- Bonkata, PO- Amba, PS- Kundahit, District- Jamtara.

3. Krishna Soren, S/o Jolo Soren

4. Sibu Soren

5. Denech Soren All sons of Late Binod Soren

3, 4 and 5 originally R/o Village- Bonkata, PO- Amba, PS- Kundahit, District- Jamtara.

At present R/o Village- Debganj, PO- Bhadolia, PS- Khairasol, District-

Birbhum (W.B.).

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara.

.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate For the State : AC to AG For the O.P.1 & 2 : Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate …...

03/ 11.12.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners and the instant CMP has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)- III, Jamtara in Original Suit No.93 of 2019 by which the proposed amendment [as detailed in Annexure-3 at Page no.39] has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the proposed amendments are typographical in nature and are intended to correct the exact area of the plots and also the number(s) of some of the plots mentioned in the Plaint.

3. These amendments are necessary for determination of the real controversies between the parties and will not cause any prejudice to the defence as they are clarificatory in nature.

4. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties/ defendants has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the amendments have been proposed after the issues were framed and the case is at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence. Therefore, the amendments, as such, is barred under the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Further, the amendments are extensive in nature and will result in change in measurement of the suit land and also the suit valuation. At present plaintiffs’ evidence has been closed and the case is at the stage of defendants’ evidence.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, law is settled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not mandatory rather directory in nature. Amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding; however, no such amendment shall be allowed which amounts to or results in defeating or results in defeating a legal right accruing to opposite party(s) on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing application should be adequately compensated by cost. Amendments should not be rejected on technical grounds. The proposed amendment even if at belated can be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. However, where no explanation is offered for the delay, it would not be just and proper to allow the amendment at the stage of the appeal.

6. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar v.

Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559 that Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed towards putting forth and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In the former case generally it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejud