1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 160 of 2025 1. Asha Devi age 50 years, old wife of late Santosh Singh 2. Ram Kumar Singh age 30 years old son of Santoshi Singh 3. Ram Pravesh Singh age 25 years, old son of Santoshi Singh All are residents of village Gokhna, P.O. Kedli, P.S. Hunterganj, District- Chatra ………………….Petitioners … Versus…. 1.Satyendra singh s/o late Krishnadeo singh 2. Siyamani Devi w/o Satendra singh 3. Dhananjay singh s/o Late Krishnadeo singh, 4. Amayjay singh's/o late Krishnadeo singh Defendant No.1 to 4 are resident of village Gokhna, P.C. Kedli, P.S.Hunterganj, Dist. Chatra, 5. Karuna Devi d/0 late Krishnadeo singh, and wife of Bhola singh, resident of village Kathar, P.O. & P.S. Sherghati, Dist. Gaya (Bihar) 6. Ruda Devi D/O Late Krishnadeo Singh wife of Ajay Singh resident of Village Kathar, P.O. & P.S. Sherghati, District Gaya, Bihar. .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : ………. 03/Dated: 18/02/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Sub-Judge-II, Chatra in O.S. Case No. 38/2018, M.C.A. No. 178/2023 whereby the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court.. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are aggrieved with first part of the said order and he is not aggrieved with later 2 part of the said order. He submits that the said petition was filed for amendment in certain paragraphs of the plaint and the learned court has rejected the said petition holding that nature of suit will change. He submits that nature of the suit will not change and only certain descriptions have been tried to be amended in the plaint and in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner has tried to amend 13 amendments in the plaint and even the plot number, area as well as location have been tried to be changed in the plaint which clearly suggests that if the said petition is allowed entire nature of the suit will change and the learned court has rightly held that nature of the suit will change and dismissed the said petition. 5. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-