-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 963 of 2023 Dr. Dev Kumar Pradhan, aged about 76 years, son of late Durga Pradhan, resident of House No. 11, Old A.G. Colony, Kadru, PO Doranda, PS Argora, District Ranchi. ..... …Petitioner Versus 1. Rita Binita Ghotre (Toppo), daughter of late Lallu Dhotre, wife of Shri Neelam Toppo, resident of Kadru, PO Doranda, PS Argora, District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office at District Collectorate Building, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. …Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate. Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the OP No.1 : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I ------ 07/ 11.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.05.2023 passed in Title Suit No.185 of 2014 by learned Additional Munsif-XXV, Ranchi, whereby the petition dated 19.08.2016, filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 29.07.2015, has been dismissed. Prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2015, whereby the petition filed under Order-VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff for amendment has been allowed. 3. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the nature of amendment is made for easementary right against the petitioner, which changes the nature of the original suit, which was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest. He then fairly submits that the petition can be disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file the amendment of the written statement in the light of amendment allowed in favour of the plaintiff and to take all legal objection at the appropriate stage in the title suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has got no serious objection. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the OP No.1 submits that the -2- nature of the suit is not changed and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the amended written statement with regard to the amended prayer, which has been allowed in favour of the plaintiff and that is right of the defendant, if any further amendment is allowed alongwith all the legal issues. 7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/-