2025:JHHC:11369 --1-- C.M.P. No. 1278 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1278 of 2023 ---- Mahesh Saw, aged about 46 years, s/o – Late Jago Saw, resident of Saudagar Mohall, Koyri Tola, Ramgarh Cantt, PO and PS – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Ramgarh Cantonment Board, PO and PS – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand 2. The Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, PO and PS – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand 3. Saurav Narain, s/o – Late Indra Jitendra Narain Singh, resident of village – Padma, PO and PS – Barhi, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 & 2 :- Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ---- 05/15.04.2025 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 of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Ramgarh in M.C.A. No.06 of 2019 and M.C.A. No.02/2023 filed in Title Suit No.131/2008 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said suit was instituted for permanent injunction which was proceeded further and the petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the prayer portion of the suit which has been rejected by the learned Court without considering the 2025:JHHC:11369 --2-- C.M.P. No. 1278 of 2023 parameters of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He submits that the Courts are liberal while allowing the said amendment, however, the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same and in view of that the same may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He submits that in the prayer portion the amendment was sought to declare the right, title and interest over the suit land and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order considering that the nature of the suit will be changed. He submits that even the due diligence has not been disclosed and it has been filed at the stage of argument and the written argument has already been filed on behalf of both the sides. 5. From the impugned order, it transpires that the argument was already closed and the written argument has already been filed. The suit is of the year 2008 wherein the said petition has been filed in the year 2019. The suit was for permanent injunction and the prayer has been sought to be amended by way of declaring the right, title and interest and in view of that the learned Court has rightly found that the nature of the suit will be changed. Even the due diligence is not shown in filing of the said petition which is one of the important parameters of allowing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/