( 2025:JHHC:20859 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 654 of 2025 1. Vishun Singh, aged 62 years, son of Keshwar Singh 2. Gorekhnath Singh, aged 41 years, son of Vishun Singh 3. Narendra Singh, aged 24 years, son of Vishun Singh 4. Jittendra Singh, aged 31 years, son of Vishun Singh 5. Harendra Singh, aged 19 years, son of Vishun Singh All above are resident of village Katra, P.O. and P.S. Ranka, District- Garhwa …………Petitioners Versus 1. Giriwari Singh @ Girwar Singh, son of late Munshi Singh, resident of village- Bishrampur, P.O. Ranka, P.S. Ranka, (now Chiniya), District- Garhwa 2. Ramlal Singh, son of late Chatradhari Singh 3. Santosh Singh, son of Ramlal Singh Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are resident of village-Hetalkhurd, P.O. and P.S. Chiniya, District-Garhwa .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate For the Opposite Party : 02/Dated: 29/07/2025 Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs for amendment in plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs/petitioners have instituted Original Suit No. 15 of 2021 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Garhwa against the defendants for partition of their half share in the scheduled land. He ( 2025:JHHC:20859 ) 2 further submits that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Garhwa by judgment dated 31.03.2023 dismissed the Original Suit no. 15/2021 and thereafter the petitioners herein preferred Civil Appeal No. 19/2023 before the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa against the order dated 31.03.2023. He submits that in the said appeal a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment was filed which was rejected by the learned court. He submits that in para 9 of the plaint it has been prayed that plaintiff wants to add plaintiff and defendant are the member of schedule tribe by caste kharwa and guided by their customary law which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that the learned court has erred in passing the impugned order. He submits that spirit of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C has not been appreciated by the learned court and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. The plaintiffs/petitioners have instituted Original Suit No. 15 of 2021 for partition of their half share in the scheduled land which was dismissed by judgment dated 31.03.2023. Thereafter the petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No. 19/2023 and in the said appeal a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court holding that due diligence is not there and further only to fill up the lacuna the said petition has been filed and new pleading has been tried to be established by way of said amendment petition and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to reject the same. 5. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the Court exercisable at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on ( 2025:JHHC:20859 ) 3 such terms as may be just. The rule goes on to provide that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Unless and until the Court is told how and in what manner the pleading originally submitted to the Court is proposed to be altered or amended, the Court cannot effectively exercise its power to permit amendment. An amendment may involve withdrawal of an admission previously made, may attempt to introduce a plea or claim barred by limitation or may be so devised as to deprive the opposite party of a valuable right accrued to him by lapse of time and so on. It is, therefore, necessary for an amendment application to set out specifically in his application, seeking leave of the Court for amendment in the pleadings, as to what is proposed to be omitted from or altered or substituted in or added to the original pleadings. 6. The Court may allow or refuse the prayer for amendment in sound exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. It would, therefore, be better if the reasons persuading the applicant to seek an amendment in the pleadings as also the grounds explaining the delay, if there be any, in seeking the amendment, are stated in the application so that the opposite party has an opportunity of meeting such grounds and none is taken by surprise at the hearing on the application. 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel & others v. Gattu Mahesh & others, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 300 in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which read as under: “12. The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The Court's discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on ( 2025:JHHC:20859 ) 4 two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states that: no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 13. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term `Due diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 14. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term "due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit.” 8. It is well-settled that an amendment cannot be allowed, if it causes prejudice to the right of the party against whom an amendment is sought for. It is also well-settled that the scope of the appellate Court is to test the correctness of the judgment under the appeal and any benefit or vested right, on account of declaration of the rights, inter se between the parties to the lis, by the trial Court, cannot be allowed to be taken away by allowing in an amendment to the pleadings, at the appellate stage, when the party seeking an amendment could have brought in such amendment, even at the time of the commencement of the trial. An amendment admitting to wipe out the pleadings and admissions of the party, already considered by the Trial Court, for the purpose of arriving at a decision, in the suit, cannot be allowed to be substituted with a new case, at the appellate stage, which would certainly cause serious prejudice to the party, against whom the amendment is sought for. The effect of an admission in earlier pleading shall not be permitted to be taken away, by any proposed amendment at the appellate stage. 9. Further the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held ( 2025:JHHC:20859 ) 5 that due diligence has not been shown by the petitioners herein and at the appellate stage the said petition has been filed. 10. For the reasons discussed hereinabove and coming on the facts of the present case that at the appellate stage the said petition has been filed and earlier admission has been tried to be withdrawn cannot be a ground to allow the same, as such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R