Jharkhand High Court
Mohiuddin Ansari vs Mansur Alam on 26 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:25428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No. 412 of 2025
-----
Mohiuddin Ansari, S/o Late Bigan Ansari, R/o Village-Karwa Pahar, P.O.-Dhurki, P.S.-Dhurki, Dist.-Garhwa ... .... Petitioner Versus
1. Mansur Alam
2. Kasmuddin Ansari
3. Lal Mohammad Ansari
4. Kamruddin Ansari
5. Noor Mohammad Ansari, O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 are S/o Late Jamiruddin Ansari
6. Asgar Ansari
7. Akhter Ansari
8. Taiyab Ansari
9. Mujubu Rahman Ansari
10.Saukat Ansari, O.P. Nos. 6 to 10 are S/o Late Sayeed Ansari
11.Abdul Rahim Ansari, S/o Late Bigan Ansari, All are R/o Village-Karwa Pahar, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurki, Dist.-Garhwa ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate For O.P. Nos. 2,4,5,7,9,8 &11 : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
-----
Oral Order 07 / Dated : 26.08.2025
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed this civil misc. petition for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 209/2019 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagar Untari, Garhwa, by which the petition for amendment of plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:
i. Declaration that Sale Deed No. 8091 of the year 2000 dated 10.11.2000 executed by Abdul Rahim Ansari in favour of the purchasers with respect to the land fully detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint, measuring an area 3.03 acres of land be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff.
ii. For confirmation of possession over 1.51 and ½ acres of land in Plot No. 920 of the said land, but if plaintiff was not found in possession by the Court, then he be put in possession through the process of the Court.
2025:JHHC:25428 iii. The copy of decree of the Court sent to Registry Office, Garhwa for making necessary entry in the records.
3. The petitioner filed the amendment petition so as to incorporate the following portion in the relief portion:
a. He was entitled for half share in the said land of Khata No. 43, Plot No. 920, measuring 1.51 and ½ acres and the same is in cultivating possession of the plaintiff.
b. If the transferee defendants took forceful possession during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff is not found in possession, the same be delivered in possession of the plaintiff through the process of Court.
c. The decree passed in the above-mentioned suit by the Court be sent to the Registry Office, Garhwa for making necessary entry in the said deed.
4. Learned Trial Court has rejected the petition in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the petition was filed after commencement of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the defects are clarificatory in nature and are not going to change the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that there is no prayer for change in the deed, rather it was also a typographical error in the amendment which was for change in the revenue records.
6. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the defendants/ opposite parties has defended the impugned order and submitted that since the petition for amendment has been brought after commencement of trial, therefore, it has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court. It is also submitted that the said amendment will change the nature of the suit and entire reliefs. It is also submitted that there was no prayer in the original suit with regard to the declaration of title and the consequential relief for confirmation includes recovery of possession, which was not prayed for. Incorporating these prayers will amount to change in the nature of the present suit.
7. Further, the petitioner has not proved the due diligence for bringing the amendment within the stipulated time as per proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Therefore, the amendment was not permissible in view of 2 2025:JHHC:25428 the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi @ Parani Devi & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 610 and Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. S.A. Sarwagi and Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 364.
8. In a recent case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal at length with scope of power of amendment in (2022) 16 SCC 1 OnLine SC 1128 (Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.). Underlying principles for deciding a petition on Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, have been summed up as under:
"18. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub-serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation.
25. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defense which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defense taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. The proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in 3 2025:JHHC:25428 defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. (See South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, (2008) 14 SCC 632)"
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time- barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-
pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already 4 2025:JHHC:25428 pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897])"
Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 308 :
"10. The power of the court to allow such an application for amendment of the plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two factors viz. (i) the application must be bona fide; (ii) the same should not cause injustice to the other side; and (iii) it should not affect the right already accrued to the defendants."
9. In the light of the position of law as settled by the Apex Court, the matter for consideration is whether the amendment sought for was in the line of its earlier relief for which the suit has been filed, or it seeks to introduce a new facts and reliefs which will essentially change the nature of the Suit and will cause prejudice to the defence.
10. From a plain reading of the plaint, it shall be apparent that the suit has been brought for declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendants, by the brother of the plaintiff was in excess of his share, and therefore was not binding on him. This being so, determination of title of the suit property with respect to the share of the plaintiff in it, the prayer for declaration of the ½ share of the plaintiff's property in it was implicit. Therefore, incorporating the prayer for declaration of the title over his share in the suit property was necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, and in no way can 5 2025:JHHC:25428 be said to change of the nature of the suit.
11. Confirmation of possession was sought for in the original Suit and not the prayer for recovery of possession is being made by way of amendment. If during the pendency of a suit for confirmation of possession, the plaintiff is dispossessed, he is entitled to amend the plaint for recovery of possession. Under the circumstance there cannot be a legitimate objection to this amendment.
12. On the point of delay, it has been held in Sampath Kumar v.
Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559 :
"9. Order 6 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 prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment.
Under the circumstance, the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 is set aside.
This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants.
Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra 6