2025:JHHC:31779 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 939 of 2025 ----- 1. Sajjan Kumar Agarwalla, aged about 76 years, Son of Late Shambhu Ram Agarwalla 2. Subhash Kumar Agarwalla, aged about 74 years, Son of Late Nanchar Lal Agarwalla, All Resident of Purana Bazar, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S – Bank More, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner Dhanbad, Office At New D.C. Office, Barwadda, P.O. & P.S-Barwadda, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, Office At - S.D.O. Campus, Dhanbad Civil Court, P.O. & P.S District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. The Circle Officer, Topchanchi, Office At P.O. & P.S Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhanbad, Office At- Combined Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Bokaro, Office At & P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 7. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Gomoh, Office At & P.O. & P.S.- Gomoh, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-1 ----- Oral Order 04 / Dated : 14.10.2025 1. Petitioners are plaintiffs and are aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 620 of 2020 by which the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by learned Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ were the homestead land of the plaintiffs and not Gair Abad land. Further, prayer was made that Jharkhand State Electricity Board (D-4 to D-7) was liable to be evicted from the property with a direction to deliver possession thereof to the plaintiffs. 3. The petitioners filed the amendment petition dated 11.06.2025 for the 2025:JHHC:31779 2 following amendments: “That in the cause title of Page 5, Para 5 in line 7 after the word Registered Deed, but deed number has not been mentioned in the aforesaid Para that now plaintiffs inserted the deed no. vide deed no. 2987 and date has wrongly been mentioned on 09-09-1931 which is wrong and should be corrected and now it should be read as dated 10-09-1931. In Page 4 of the plaint, Para 4 in line 6 after the word Mokrari Permanent Patta, but Patta number has not been mentioned and now plaintiffs intend to insert Mokrari Peramanent Patta No. 2849 date has been mentioned 22-09- 1922, which is wrong and should be corrected and now it should be read on 23-09-1922. Plaintiffs also amend in page no 4, Para 4 in line 15 after the word Regd. sale deed number has not been mentioned, but now plaintiffs inserted Regd. Sale deed no. 1983 dated 09-07-1928 should be mentioned. That similarly at page 3 of the plaint, Para 2 in line 9 after the word Regd. Sale deed has been mentioned, but deed number and date has not been mentioned, now plaintiffs intend to insert Regd. Sale Deed no. 2952 dated 01-08-1932 should be inserted.” Plaintiffs intend to insert after end of Para 7 of the plaint and new Para 7 (a) may be added as follows:- “7(a) That certified copy of miscellaneous case no. 53/93-94 as well as Miscellaneous Revenue case no. 53(iii)/ 93-94 which has been stand in the name of Subhash Kumar Agarwalla order dated 18-01-1994 of Circle Officer, Topchachi. As well as order dated 18-01-1994 of Circle Officer, Topchachi. As well a certified copy of Miscellaneous Revenue case no. 54/93-94 order dated 18-01-1994 of Anchal Nirakshak (C.I) as well as order sheet dated 4-10-93/5-10-93 in Miscellaneous Revenue case no. 54(iv)/ 93-94 stand in the name of Sajjan Kumar Agarwalla order dated 18-01-1994 of Anchal of Circle officer Topchachi.” 4. It is argued that the amendment petition has been rejected on the ground that no specific reason was assigned as to why the same had not been mentioned in the plaint itself at the time of its filing. Thus, the main 2025:JHHC:31779 3 ground of rejection was that due diligence was not exercised by the plaintiffs at the time of filing the plaint for which the amendment was sought at the argument stage. 5. It is argued by learned counsel that no new fact has been sought to be introduced by way of amendment and only typographical error which has been sought to be corrected by making necessary corrections in relevant portion of the plaint. 6. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs seek to introduce the evidence in the pleading and further, the amendment has been brought at the fag end of the trial. 7. So far proposed amendment at para 7(a) is concerned, it is in the nature of the evidence which is sought to be introduced in the pleading. It is cardinal principle of pleading that the pleading is confined to assertion of fact and law and not of evidence. 7(a) is all about evidence and, therefore, the proposed amendment is without any merit so far 7(a) is concerned and, therefore, there is no infirmity in its rejection by the learned Trial Court. 8. So far as the amendment as proposed in para-4 of the amendment petition dated 11.06.2025 is concerned. It is by and large clarificatory in nature and thereby correcting the number and date of the different orders passed and stated in the plaint. No prejudice will be caused by allowing the said amendment. 9. Under the circumstance, the impugned order, so far as the rejection of order for amendment with respect to para-4 of the amendment petition is concerned, is set aside and this civil misc. petition is partly allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to adduce evidence before learned Trial Court with respect to proposed amendment of 7(a) if the trial court finds them to be relevant and for the ends of justice. Pending, I.A. If, any stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra Uploaded 15.10.2025