Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Nirmala Prasad vs Smt. Ritu Verma on 14 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:23944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 410 of 2024
1. Smt. Nirmala Prasad, W/o Sri Gauri Shankar Prasad, R/o Village-Gari,
Booty Road, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Smt. Anita Prasad, D/o Mr. Suryadeo Narayan Sinha, R/o Village-Gari,
Booty Road, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Ritu Verma, W/o Sri Avinash Verma, R/o C-2, NTPC, PO & PS Biduth
Nagar, District G.B. Nagar, Utter Pradesh
2. Smt. Prachi Priya Sahay, W/o K. Sahay, R/o Flat No. 645, Sector-C, Pocket
No. 6 PO & PS Basant Kunj, New Delhi
3. Mrs. Tulika Sinha, W/o Shri Kamal Kunj, R/o D/2/404, Power Grid
Corporation, PO & PS Sector-43, Gurgaon Haryana
4. Smt. Silpi Sinha, W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, R/o Lane No. 6, PO & PS
Patel Nagar, Patna, Bihar.
5. Sri Gaya Singh, S/o Late Shivnandan Prasad Singh, R/o Kusum Bihar,
Morabadi, PO & PS Bariatu, District-Ranchi
6. Sri Gobind Dubey, S/o Sri Rampravesh Dubey, R/o Harihar Singh Road,
Jeevan Gali, Morabadi, PO & PS-Bariatu Dist. Ranchi
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No. 04 / Dated : 14.08.2025.
1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order in M.C.A. No.682/2023, Original Suit(T) No. 337/2009 dated 21.02.2024 by which the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC of the plaintiffs/ petitioners has been rejected.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring the sale deed dated 18.09.2006 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 as fraudulent and inoperative and that purchaser had not acquired any right, title and interest on the basis of the said sale deed.
3. The petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed for the following proposed amendments:
(1) That after paragraph 16 of the Plaint a new paragraph 16 (a), 16(b), 16(c), 16(d), 16(e), 16(f) and 16(g) be added in the plaint; (16)(a) That there is a Garage on the portion of suit property mentioned in Schedule-A admeasuring an area of 2132 Sq.ft., situated in Eastern side 1 2025:JHHC:23944 of the land belongs to Plaintiff No. 1. The said Garage (Car repairing center) has been leased out to Md. Jumauddin Ansari S/o Abdul Rahim through the Plaintiff No. 2, who is younger sister of Plaintiff No.1. That Plaintiff No. 2 was authorized by the Plaintiff No. 1 to collect the rent from tenant.
(16) (b) That Md. Jumauddin Ansari had filed a petition before Rent Controller, Ranchi U/s 5 of BBC Act, 1982 on 04.08.2006 which was registered as B.B.C. Case No. 26/2006 for issuance of rent receipt from Anita Prasad/The Plaintiff No.2 and permit him to pay the rent to receiver in the treasury office. Md. Jumauddin Ansari claimed himself as Tenant of Plaintiff No.2/ Anita Prasad with respect to a Garage (Car repairing center).
(16)(c) That the Rent controller suo- moto proceeded for the fixation of fair rent for the said leased premises.
(16)(d) That during hearing the said B.B.C. Case No. 26/2006 a report was called for from the than Executive magistrate, Ranchi. The report was submitted by the Executive magistrate, Ranchi on 05.09.2006 and a fair rent for the said premises was proposed for Rs. 3731/- per month. (16)(e) That the learned RENT CONTROLLER, RANCHI vide his order dt.
10.11.2006 fixed the fair rent @ Rs. 2300/- per month and directed Md. Jumauddin Ansari to deposit the rent to Ranchi Treasury during the pendency of the said BBC Case.
(16)(f) That in the year 2007, the State government has decided to acquire some portion of the suit property under Land Acquisition case No. 06/2007- 08 for widening of the Bariatu-Booty Road.
(16)(g) That the State Government acquired all together 0.0075 Acres (i.e. 0.75 Decimals) of land out of the plot no. 2647. The Government has paid compensation of Rs. 1,41,802/-to the plaintiff No.1 on 18.09.2011 by an account payee cheque.
4. The learned Trial Court rejected the amendment petition on the ground that the pleadings proposed to be introduced was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and no sufficient reason was assigned for filing amendment petition after framing of issues.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the proposed pleadings shall be necessary for proper adjudication of the 2 2025:JHHC:23944 dispute between the parties.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants/ opposite parties has contested the claim for amendment of the plaint.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the records, the matter for consideration before this Court is whether the proposed amendments are necessary for determination of the real dispute between the parties and if sufficient reason has been assigned for not exercising due diligence in filing the amendment petition within the stipulated time under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Law in this regard as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 2019 (4) JLJR 624 Gopal Chadra Dutta Vs Bihar School Examination Board and Ors. is that conditions for allowing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC after framing of issue:
I. Nature and character of the suit should not be allowed to be changed. II. The court comes to the conclusion that the party in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
8. In the present case, the suit for cancellation of the deed on the ground that the previous sale by the vendor in favour of other party from whom the petitioners/ plaintiffs' claim. In this view of matter, this Court does not find the proposed amendment of the plaint necessary for determination of the dispute between the parties and also no reason has been assigned for delay in bringing the amendment petition. In this view of matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -
3