2025:JHHC:36646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 979 of 2025 1. Anil Tirkey 2. Ranjit Tirkey Both sons of late Kena Tirkey 3. Mithu Tirkey, S/o late Dhulu Oraon All by caste-Oraon, R/o Jamuntoli, Village-Sarwal, PO-Tetri, PS-Namkum, District-Ranchi ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Bimal Tirkey, S/o late Bandhu Oraon (Tirkey), R/o Jamuntoli, Village-Sarwal, PO-Tetri, PS Namkum, District Ranchi … …. Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC-1 Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to GP-IV ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 05.12.2025. 1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs to quash the order dated 05.07.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 467 of 2014 by which the amendment petition filed by defendant no. 1 (Bimal Tirkey) under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed. Petitioners filed the suit for partition impleading defendant no. 1 (Bimal Tirkey) for half share in the Schedule-B property detailed in the plaint. 2. The genealogy table of the parties is stated in Schedule-A of the plaint as under: - ` Sukh Ram Oraon Dukhram Oraon Laxman Oraon Birsa Oraon Lohra Oraon Logo Oraon Hangra Oraon Jhongo Oraon Koka Oraon Dhulu Oraon (Tirkey) Bandhu Oraon (Tirkey) Bimal Tirkey Kena Tirkey Mithu Tirkey 2025:JHHC:36646 3. Defendant no. 1 and others appeared filed joint written statement and contested the suit of partition. However, the genealogical table in the Schedule of the plaint has no where been disputed in the written statement. On the contrary, the said genealogical table has been admitted in para 8 of the written statement. 4. Defendant no. 1 filed amendment petition under Order VI and Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to incorporate the followings amendments: - (a) At Para 9 of Page 2 of the written statement wherever the name of the common ancestor of both the plaintiff and Defendant No.-1 appears as "Sukhram Oraon", it may be allowed to be deleted and in its place the name "Dukhram Oraon" may be allowed to be inserted. (b) At Page No.-3 of the written statement, under the heading "genealogical chart" wherever the name of "Sukhram Oraon" appears may be allowed to be deleted. 5. Petitioners contested the amendment petition on the ground that the amendment sought to be made was at the fag end of the trial and there was no explanation for the delay. 6. Learned Trial Court allowed the amendment petition considering it to be a formal in nature. 7. Heard both sides. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners/ plaintiffs that the amendment is not formal in nature, rather it is a subtle attempt to withdraw admission with respect to the genealogy made in the written statement. It is the admitted case of the defendants that it was Sukh Ram Oraon who was the common ancestor and Laxman Oraon, Dukhram Oraon were his sons. If Dukhram Oraon is substituted in place of Sukh Ram Oraon, it will in effect deny that Laxman Oraon was the son of the Sukh Ram Oraon and that he came from the same family. Law is settled that under the garb of an amendment of pleadings, admission cannot be withdrawn, that too at the fag end of the trial when almost all evidences has been led on behalf of both sides. Impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - uploaded 09.12.2025