2025:JHHC:33500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 685 of 2025 Tilak Sao, S/o Late Khago Sao, R/o Village-Uttimtand, P.O-Senadoni, P.S.- Giridih (M), District Giridih ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Ritlal Sao, S/o Late Bhairo Sao, R/o Village-Uttimtand, P.O-Senadoni, P.S.- Giridih (M), District Giridih 2. Sitwa Devi @ Sita Devi, W/o Ritlal Sao, R/o Village -Uttimtand, P.O- Senadoni, P.S.-Giridih (M), District Giridih, Jharkhand … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr. Harshit Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 07.11.2025. Petitioner is the plaintiff and is aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2024 passed in O.S. No. 128/2022 by which the amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration o right, title and interest over the suit land as detailed in schedule of the plaint and also for the recovery of the same. Further permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. 2. Petitioner filed the amendment petition on 16.02.2023 for the proposed amendments: (a) That after end of para 12 of the plaint the following lines be added: - “Thereafter the defendants by sheer use of force and long purse have wrongly constructed four pucca rooms and one lane in the middle portion of the suit land i.e. two rooms on both sides of the lane during pendency of the suit. (b) After end of para 16(b) of the plains the following lines be added: - “All sorts of construction made by the defendants over portion of the suit land be ordered to be removed by the defendants within fifteen days failing which the construction be demolished and khas possession be recovered to the plaintiff through process of the court.” 3. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application for amendment for 2025:JHHC:33500 the following reason: - “It appears by way of this amendment plaintiff wants to change the nature of construction done by the defendant upon the suit land. In other words, the plaintiff wants to amend the nature of the suit land so as to corroborate its injunction petition, whereas the spirit of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is to allow only those amendments which are necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the suit.” 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the proposed amendment is only clarificatory in nature and it is in no way change the nature of the suit. 5. In this case notices were earlier issued to the opposite parties/ defendants which have been served, but none have appeared and consequently, the instant civil miscellaneous petition is being heard ex-parte. 6. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC reads as under: - “17. Amendment of pleadings. - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” From the above provision, it will be abundantly clear that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding; however, no such amendment shall be allowed which amounts or results in defeating the legal right accruing to opposite party on the account of lapse of time. It is also settled that amendment should not normally be rejected on technical grounds. Liberal principles guide the exercise of discretion in allowing the amendments so that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. Further, amendment can be refused when it can change or alter the character of an action. Law with regard to it has been summed up by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 SCC online SC 1128 Life Insurance Co. of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2025:JHHC:33500 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the 2025:JHHC:33500 amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .) 7. In the present case the suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession and by way of an amendment a further relief is being prayed for demolition of the structure on the suit land. These reliefs in no way can be said to change the nature of the suit and is intended for the additional relief by removing the structures over the suit land for which the title and possession is prayed for. There is also no delay in preferring the amendment petition. 8. The impugned order is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 11.11.2025