2025:JHHC:32178 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.444 of 2025 1.Mishri Lal Marandi, S/o Late Bideshi Marandi 2.Sumi Marandi 3.Minor, Rinku Marandi @ Rinky Marandi Both daughters of Late Sashi Marandi 4.Umesh Marandi 5.Karan Aditya Marandi Both sons of Late Ramchandra Marandi 6.Nemia Devi, W/o Late Ram Chandra Marandi All are R/o Village- Ramakunda, PO & PS- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Binod Kumhar 2. Ramchandra Kumhar Both Sons of Late Mahadeo Kumhar 3. Champa Devi, D/o Late Gopal Kumhar 4. Bhagirath Kumhar, S/o Late Gopal Kumhar 5. Smt. Saraswati Devi, D/o Late Gopal Kumhar 6. Smt. Ashi Devi, D/o Late Gopal Kumhar 7. Mihini Devi 8. Sohni Devi 9. Malti Devi 7 To 9 are D/o Late Mahadeo Kumhar All R/o Village- Ramakunda, PO and PS- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate , …... 05/ 15.10.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant CMP has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by learned District Judge- V, Dhanbad, in Civil Appeal No.95 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the petition under Order VI Rule 17 and under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of memo of appeal and plaint has been rejected. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for grant of permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. 3. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit, inter-alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in terms of Section 46(3A) of the C.N.T. Act, who was a necessary party and was not impleaded as a defendant in the suit. 4. Learned Counsel for the opp. Party(s) while defending the impugned order has submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has 2025:JHHC:32178 2 dismissed the amendment petition on the ground that if the petition is allowed, the same will result in de-novo trial as newly legally added party(s) will be able to file written statement and examine and cross- examine the witnesses in the suit. 5. It is submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that impleadment of the party(s) will violate the principles of natural justice and the party at the trial stage will also have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses and also for rebuttal of the same. In sum and substance, the First Appellate Court accepted the argument that the impleadment at the appellate stage will lead to de novo trial. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs that they are the members of the Scheduled Tribe and the defendants/ Opp. Parties are non-tribal. The amendment under Section 46(3A) of the CNT Act was introduced in the year 1976 to protect the interest of the tribal and this provision cannot be interpreted counter to their interest. Deputy Commissioner is a formal party as his impleadment is necessary only to protect the interest of the scheduled tribe. Inadvertently, he was not impleaded as a party in the suit and this cannot be made a ground of dismissal of the suit in favour of a party who is non-tribal. 7. Impleadment of the Deputy Commissioner will not result in de-novo trial in the present case and even if it is assumed that such a possibility was probable, it will affect the interest of the plaintiff(s)/petitioners and not the defendant(s). 8. It is argued by learned counsel for the Opp. Parties that his impleadment at this stage will result in de-novo trial. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, I find substance in the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner is a formal party and the intended provisions is to protect the interest of the tribal and not to work against their interest. 10. In the present case, the suit filed by a Tribal against a non-tribal has been dismissed inter alia on the ground of omission to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 11. First appellate court being courts of fact, it will not serve the ends of justice to revert the matter to the trial court. 2025:JHHC:32178 3 12. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the amendment petition is allowed to implead the Deputy Commissioner in the plaint as well as in the memo of appeal. 13. It is clarified that after the said amendment, notice will be served to the Deputy Commissioner by the First Appellate Court and the written statement, if any, will be filed within a month of the service of notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and no further extension will be granted by the learned First Appellate Court for filing of written statement. The instant CMP stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-