( 2025:JHHC:19007 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 97 of 2023 1.Pritpal Singh, aged about 42 years, son of late Gobardhan Singh 2. Jasbir Kour, aged about 60 years, wife of late Gobardhan Singh, both residents of 7 Bhaljoria Road, Nirsa, Pithakiary, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad, (Jharkhand) …………Petitioner Versus 1.Bramhdeo Yadav, son of Sri Gaji Yadav, resident of Nirsa, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad 2(i) Joly Chandra, wife of late Arun Kumar Chandra 2(ii) Kunal Chandra, son of late Arun Kumar Chandra 2(iii) Rahul Chandra son of late Arun Kumar Chandra 2(iv) Suman Chandra, daughter of late Arun Kumar Chandra All residents of Nirsa, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad 3. Ashok Kumar Chandra, son of late Ajit Kumar Chandra 4. Subrat Chandra 5. Somnath Chandra 6. Subhash Chandra 7. Satinath Chandra 8. Bishwanath Chandra Respondents No. 4 to 8 sons of Gopal Krishan Chandra, All residents of Nirsa, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad. .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Satyam Kumar, Advocate 08/Dated: 14/07/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.293 of 2011 whereby the petition dated 24.06.2022 filed by petitioners/co-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C, has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said suit a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed which was allowed by the ( 2025:JHHC:19007 ) 2 learned court by order dated 30.11.2018. He submits that thereafter the petitioners herein have been made plaintiff nos. 8 and 9 in the suit. He submits that thereafter the petitioners filed amendment petition in the plaint which was rejected by the impugned order by the learned court. He further submits that only the case of the plaintiff nos. 8 and 9 has been tried to be brought on record and that has been rejected by learned court which is against the mandate of law. On these grounds, he submits that impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 opposes the prayer and submits that other plaintiffs have not given any consent and the pleadings of the plaintiffs have been sought to be amended by said amendment petition in view of that the learned court has rightly rejected the said petition. 5. It is an admitted position that under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. the petitioners herein were made plaintiff nos. 8 and 9 in the suit and thereafter petition was filed for amendment in the plaint that too in the pleadings of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 7. The other plaintiffs have not signed the said documents and only plaintiff no. 9 signed the said petition and considering all these aspects the learned court has rejected the said amendment petition. In the aforesaid ground, the court finds that if in absence of consent of other plaintiffs the pleadings of plaintiff nos. 1 to 7 has been sought to be amended that is not in accordance with law and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-