2025:JHHC:24311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 756 of 2025 1. Setho Mahtha, S/o Dahu Pasi 2. Puran Pasi @ Puran Mahtha S/o Late Gajo Pasi 3. Kishun Mahtha, S/o Late Uday Pasi 4. Ramjee Mahtha, S/o Uday Pasi 5. Hanuman Mahtha, S/o Kishun Mahtha 6. Sudhir Mahtha, S/o Kishun Mahtha 7. Pradeep Mahtha 8. Sanjay Mahtha 9. Prakash Mahtha S. No. 7 to 9 are sons of Late Naresh Mahtha 10. Birma Devi, W/o Late Naresh Mahtha 11. Ashok Mahtha, S/o Late Naresh Mahtha All are residents of village-Punsia (Balsara), PO-Malhara, PS- Mahonpur, District-Deoghar ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Bharti Devi, W/o Shri Pramod Mahtha, D/o Late Naresh Mahtha, present residents of village-Salonatanr, Ward No. 17 of Deoghar Municipal Corporation, PO, PS & Dist.-Deoghar 2. Mahavati Devi, D/o Bhola Pasi, R/o Barmasia, Ward No. 7, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, PO, PS & Dist.-Deoghar … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate Md Faiz, Advocate Mr. Papita Mondal, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 04 / Dated : 19.08.2025. 1. Petitioners are the defendants in Title Partition Suit No. 12/2016 and they are aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2025 by which the amendment petition filed by the defendants has been rejected. The petition filed for amendment of their written statement inter alia on the ground that suit was barred under Section 5 and 9 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation Act, 1872. 2. The said amendment has been rejected on the ground that the written statement was filed on 25.05.2016 and at no stage, the jurisdiction had been challenged. The evidence of both the parties was recorded and the case was posted for argument when the amendment petition was filed without assigning any cogent reason. Learned Trial Court concluded that it was a dilatory tactic to file amendment petition. 2025:JHHC:24311 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that no new facts have been sought for by way of amendment and only question of law was being raised with regard to the maintainability of the suit and therefore, the learned Trial Court was in error to reject the amendment petition. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. No reason whatsoever had been stated for delay in filing the amendment petition so as to explain that defendant had exercised due diligence as required under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Having failed to assign any reason for the delay in moving the court for amendment, there was no infirmity in the impugned order. However, it be noted that, the subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, whereas territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction need to be raised at the first instance (See Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors. AIR (1954) SC 340). Civil Miscellaneous Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -