2025:JHHC:25911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 806 of 2025 1. Bhola Mahato 2. Durga Mahato @ Durga Prasad Mahato Both sons of Late Sitaram Mahato 3. Dilip Mahato @ Dilip Kr. Mahato 4. Santosh Mahato @ Santosh Kumar Mahato 5. Jitendra Mahato @ Jitendra Kumar Mahato No. 3 to 5 sons of Late Damodar Mahato and grandsons of Late Sitaram Mahato All are resident of village- Bansmuri, P.O. & P.S. Katras Chowki Sadar, Dist. Dhanbad ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Jagannath Singh 2. Krishna Singh 3. Gopal Singh All sons of Late Bhiku Singh 4. Sitaram Singh 5. Raj Kumar Singh Both sons of Bharav Singh All are residents of village-Bansmuri, P.O. & P.S. Katras Chowki Sadar, Dist. Dhanbad … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 02 / Dated : 27.08.2025. 1. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 253/2020 by which a petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs: i. for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-A land and the entries made in RS Khata No. 96 was wrong. ii. Further prayer was made for a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over Schedule A land. Schedule-A land is detailed hereinunder: All that piece and parcel of Raiyati land situated in District Dhanbad, P.S. Katras, Mouza- Bansmuri, mouza no. 224, under khata no. 96 khesra no. 747 area 5 dec., Khesra no. 751, area 015 dec., Khesra no. 761 area 12 dec., present Sikmi khata no. 1 khesra no. 699 area .42 dec. khesra no. 700 area .40 dec., khesra no. 722 area .30 dec. khesra no. 759 area 17 dec., khesra no. 759 area 17 dec., khesra no. 760 area .17 dec., khesra no. 752 area .14 dec., khesra no. 2025:JHHC:25911 756 area .3 dec., khesra no. 723 area .10 dec., khesra no. 727 area .58 dec., khesra no. 734 area 20 dec., khesra no. 735 area .10 dec., khesra no. 736 area .10 dec., khesra no. 737 area .13 dec., khesra no. 738 area .6 dec., khesra no. 749 area 13 dec., under C.S. khata no. 3 and 8 Plot no. 475, 473, 471, 402, 403, 468, 467, 755, 460, 457, 459 and 461, Total area 3.38 acres. 3. The amendment petition was filed to incorporate the following changes as detailed in para-3 of the petition for amendment; That, Sikmi Khata No. 01 curving out of C.S. Khata No. 8 is wrongly prepared and finally published in the name of the Defendants and therefore the plaintiff has filed the present suit, but in the Schedule of the plaint Khata No. 96 wrongly typed and also the plot numbers are wrongly typed and as it is required to delete the description of the lands as mentioned in the Schedule A of the plaint may be deleted and in its place a fresh Schedule A may be inserted in the following manner; All that piece and parcel of Raiyati land situated in the District Dhanbad, P.S. Katras, Mouza Bansmuri, Mouza No. 224, under Sikmi Khata No. 01, curving out from C.S. Khata No. 08; R.S. Plot No. / C.S. Plot No. Area 699 / 402 42 decimals 700/ 402 40 722 / 403, 404 30 723 / 405 10 727 / 402 58 734 / 460 20 737 / 458 13 738 / 460, 461 60 749 / 356 13 752 / 472 03 756 / 473 10 735 / 460 10 758 / 464 07 760 /467 17 759 / 356, 458 17 736 / 458 10 2025:JHHC:25911 Total Area 3.56 Acres 4. The defendants did not appear and consequently, the suit proceeded ex-parte before the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that as per the proposed amendment, the area came to 3.56 acres, whereas schedule area as reflected in the original petition came to 3.38 acres. The Trial Court held that it would change the nature of the suit. Consequently, the petition was rejected. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment was typographical in nature and would not in any way change the nature of the suit. It is, however, fairly admitted that in the amendment application there has been an error in computing the area of land. After the amendment, the total area will measure 3.56 acres and not 3.38 acres as reflected in the amendment petition. It is also contended that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and presently, the case is at the stage of argument. The typographical error was not earlier detected and, therefore, there was delay in filing the amendment petition after commencement of trial. 7. Law is settled that it is a liberal principle which guides the exercise of discretion in allowing the amendments. Such amendments which do not alter the character of an action should be readily granted, while care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable characters are not inflicted upon the opposite parties. It has also been settled that hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with the prayer of amendment pleadings. 8. Here in the present case, the proposed amendments do not alter the nature of the suit and will not prejudice the defendants. The amendments are clerical in nature and, therefore, the same are fit to be allowed. 9. However, since the petitioners/plaintiffs has admitted that there have been computational errors in filing the amendment petition, amendment petition afresh will be filed within two weeks of this order before the Trial Court for amendment in the schedule with proper measurement of land. The Trial Court will pass the order afresh after hearing the petitioners/plaintiffs. This Civil Misc Petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -