2025:JHHC:26157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 748 of 2025 Shivanand Prasad Ray @ Shivji Prasad Ray, Son of Late Arjun Prasad Ray, R/o Mauza-Amarpur, Pagal Baba Road, Near-F.C.I. Godown, Jasidih, P.O. & P.S.- Jasidih, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Vishnu Ray, S/o Late Badri Ray 2. Paresh Ray, S/o Late Keshav Ray 3. Prafull Ray, S/o Late Keshav Ray Sl Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of Pagal Baba Road, Near-F.C.I. Godown, Jasidih, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand 4. Baldev Ray, S/o Late Upendra Rai, R/o Village-Raidih, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 02 / Dated : 28.08.2025. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 206/2018 (M.C.A No. 23 of 2024) by which a petition for amendment in plaint under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed partition suit, inter alia, for the following reliefs: i. For a preliminary decree declaring 3/5th share of the plaintiff of Schedule-1 property against all the defendants. ii. For a preliminary decree declaring 1/10th share of the plaintiff in Schedule-II property against all the defendants. 3. Schedule-1 property measures an area 6 Katha, whereas Schedule-II property measures total area 3.86 acres. 4. The amendment petition was filed by the petitioner to incorporate the following changes as detailed in para-3A of the petition for amendment: “for a complete share of Schedule-I property in place of 3/5th share earlier made in para-29 of the plaint.” 2025:JHHC:26157 5. The Trial Court rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that an admission was sought to be withdrawn by making this amendment depriving defendant nos. 1, 4 and 5 from their shares in Schedule-1 property. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment was necessitated in view of the admission in the written statement made by the defendants. However, since the written statement was rejected, therefore, it was necessary for the ends of justice to incorporate this amendment. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the evidence is sought to be introduced under the garb of amendment in the pleading. 8. Law is settled that the pleadings of a party is to assert the fact on which the reliefs are claimed. Here, the proposed amendment runs into three pages proposed in the relief portion. They constitute largely factual assertions and the evidence for the claim of relief over Schedule-I property. Initially, his claim for 3/5th share was made in Schedule-1 property, now the claim is being staked of Schedule-I property which is in contradiction to the original relief prayed for. There is no reason whatsoever for the change of this stand, which will amount to withdrawal of an admission. 9. Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 10. This Civil Misc Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -