2025:JHHC:12663 --1-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI (Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 ---- 1. Amit Multiplex Private Limited, a company duly registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Metro Gali, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi through its Director and authorised signatory Ajay Chandra Sinha aged about 72 years, son of Late Rameshwari Charan, resident of Flat no. 2B, 2nd Floor, Sandeep Towers, Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. 2. Ajay Chandra Sinha aged about 72 years, son of Late Rameshwari Charan, resident of Flat no. 2B, 2nd Floor, Sandeep Towers, Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. M/s Savitri Devi Properties Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 313A, Ashoka Place, Exhibition Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Srikrishna Puri, Patna- 800001 through its Director Rakesh Srivastava son of Late Gulab Chand Lal, resident of 401 Pushpanjali Plaza, Vasant Vihar Colony, P.O.-G.PO, P.S. Srikrishna Puri, Patna (Bihar), Pin- 800001. 2. Madhu Srivastava, Director M/s Savitri Devi Properties Private Limited wife of Rakesh Srivastava resident of 401 Pushpanjali Plaza, Vasant Vihar Colony, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Srikrishna Puri, Patna (Bihar), Pin-800001. 3. Ashish Srivastava, Director M/s Savitri Devi Properties Private Limited son of Rajesh Srivastava resident of 401, Pushpanjali Plaza, Vasant Vihar Colony, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Srikrishna Puri, Patna (Bihar), Pin-800001. …………….Defendants/Opposite Parties 2025:JHHC:12663 --2-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 4. Kalyan Kumar Srivastava, Director Amit Multiplex Private Limited son of Late Krishna Chand Prasad, resident of near Shiv Mandir, Latehar, P.O, P.S. and District Latehar, at present residing near Sidhu Kanhu Park, village Hatma, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ……………Plaintiff / Proforma Opposite Party 5. Dr. Kumar Vijay Raj Singh son of not known to the petitioner, resident of 3rd Lane, Jatin Chand Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the O.Ps :- None ---- 19/28.04.2025 The notice upon the opposite parties have already been effected, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and in view of that one more opportunity was provided to them and this matter was adjourned on 20.02.2025, in spite of that nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties till date, as such this petition is being heard in absence of the opposite parties. 2. Heard Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.15 of 2020 (arising out of Original Suit No.691 of 2016). 4. Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Original Suit No.691 of 2016 was instituted by the petitioners who are the plaintiff for cancellation of 2025:JHHC:12663 --3-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 Sale-Deed No.1136/859 dated 05.03.2013 with respect to the third floor and the agreement dated 21.08.2012 with respect to 4th and 5th Floor of the “Aniketa Mall” situated at Mauza Chadri, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. He further submits that in the said case the defendants were noticed and they have appeared and filed their written statement and the matter has proceeded further. He then submits in the previous proceeding, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been filed by the defendants who are the opposite parties herein to amend the written statement filed by the defendants which has been allowed by the learned Court vide impugned order saying that the amendment is formal in nature. He submits that the learned Court has erred in observing the same in view of the fact that in their written statements, statement of accounts are different and by way of the amendment, the entire admission made therein has been sought to be withdrawn which is prejudicing the case of the petitioners herein. He submits by way of allowing the said amendment, the learned Court has allowed to change the nature of the suit completely. He submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. 7. From the record it transpires that after notice, the defendants have appeared and file their written statement wherein at Annexure-1, the statement of accounts has been disclosed, which is as under:- “ ANNEXURE-I STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2025:JHHC:12663 --4-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 DETAILS OF CONSIDERATION AMOUNT PAID BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTFF 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor TOTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 1951 11953 11952 DATE OF AGREEMENT 21.08.2012 21.08.2012 21.08.2012 TOTAL CONSIDERATION AMOUNT AS ON DATE OF REGISTERED AGREEMENTS. 9.630.000 7.920.000 7.920.000 25.470.000 PAID AMOUNT AS ON DATE OF REGISTERATION 8.573.000 5.198.500 5.198.500 18.870.000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSIDERATION AMOUNT 89% 65.63% 65.63% 74.47% REMAINING BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE PAID 1.057.000 2.271.500 2.721.500 6.500.000 REMAINING % BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE PAID 11% 34.64% 34.64% 25.52% 8. In view of the above, it transpires that consideration amount has been paid as on the date of registration for centre of consideration amount, remaining balance amount have been disclosed and remaining balance amount to be paid has been disclosed. By way of filing the amendment petition which has been stated as under:- 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor Total Agreement no 11951 11952 11953 Date of agreement 21.08.2012 21.08.2012 21.08.2012 Total Consideration amount payable 96,30,000 79,20,000 79,20,000 Paid amount as on Full amount RTGS and NEFT RTGS and 00 2025:JHHC:12663 --5-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 date of registration NEFT % of consideration amount 100 No balance 100 No balance 100 No balance 00 Balance to be paid Zero Zero Zero 00 % dues to be paid No dues No dues No dues 00 9. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the admission made therein in the written statement has been completely withdrawn by the said amendment which has been allowed by the learned Court. 10. In the case of “Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others”, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84, paragraph no.63 of the said judgment which is as under:- “63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.” 11. The principles of amendment further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ganesh Prasad Vs. Rajeshwar and Others”, Reported in (2023) 6 SCC 893, wherein 2025:JHHC:12663 --6-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 paragraph no.36 which has been held as under:- “ 36. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, the position of law has been explained as under: “70. ….. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) 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, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala-fide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) 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. (vii) 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. (viii) Amendment may 2025:JHHC:12663 --7-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) 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. (x) 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 pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) 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, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 12. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear if nature of suit sought to be changed and if the prayer is mala fide the other side loses its defense, the amendment is fit to be rejected. 13. It is an admitted fact as discussed herein that the admission made in the written statement has been sought to be withdrawn completely which is changing the nature of suit which is not the spirit of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and the allowing the 2025:JHHC:12663 --8-- C.M.P. No. 300 of 2022 said petition by the learned Court saying that it is formal in nature is erroneous. 14. Admittedly, after filing of the written statement by the defendants that admission is made in favour of the defendants and that has been withdrawn and if such a situation is there in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and Others (supra) the valid defense of the defendants has been tried to be taken away and in view of that, the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order and as such the impugned order dated 01.02.2020 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.15 of 2020 (Arising out of Original Suit No.691 of 2016) by learned Sub Judge-VII, Ranchi is hereby set aside. 15. As such, the present C.M.P. No.300 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) S.Das/ A.F.R.