( 2025:JHHC:11286 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 325 of 2025 Sohan Lal Mishra, aged about 61 years, son of late Mohan Lal Mishra, resident of Bambam Baba Brahamchari Path near Bhurbhura More, P.O.-B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar …… Petitioner Versus Amar Nath Gupta, aged about 66 years, son of Kashi Nath Shah, resident of Quarter No. 2, Road No. 2, Nitibag Colony, Bhuiyadih West, Patel Nagar, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sidgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum At present R/O C, 506, Ashima Royal City, Near Ashnani School, Jatkehri at Bhopal, P.O. Mungalia, P.S. Mungalia, District Bhopal (M.P.-462043) State-M.P. …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : …….. 04/Dated: 15/04/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 11.02.2025 in connection with M.C.A. No. 499/2025 arising out of Original Suit No. 306 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-VII, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been filed before the learned court. He submits that the petitioner happens to be plaintiff in the said suit and the nature of the suit will not change if the amendment petition is allowed inspite of that learned court has rejected the said petition. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. From perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner has filed the amendment petition before the learned court to amend the page no. 8 in the 6th line of paragraph 23 of the plaint after the words “defendant” and before the word “ which” the following words is bound to execute sale ( 2025:JHHC:11286 ) deed in favour of plaintiff”. At page no. 8 in the 8th line of paragraph 23 after the word “ pay the” and before the word “ court” the word “ fixed” be struck- off and its place “maximum” be inserted. At page No. 8 in the last line of paragraph 23 the digit “ 250/- only” be deleted and its place “ Maximum” be inserted. At page No. 9 in the relief (i) of para- 24 after the words “ defendant” the words “ be directed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. After receiving the balance sale consideration as per the agreement for sale dated 07.06.2024, if the defendant facts to do so, in that event sale deed would be executed through the process of Court, be added. 5. The learned court has found that the case is running at the stage of argument and the amendment which has been brought by the plaintiff will change the nature of the suit and the suit was declaratory in nature and in the light of that the learned court has rejected the petition. At the stage of argument the said petition has been filed and due diligence has not been shown by the petitioner and so many amendments have been tried to be made in the plaint which will certainly change the nature of the suit and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said 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/