( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 1 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 837 of 2025 Sk. Basarat Ansari, aged about 50 years, son of Late Hanif Ansari, resident of Village –Sildiri, P.O. –Ormanjhi, Dahu, P.S. –No. 32, District –Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner Versus 1. Manjoor Ansari, son of Usman Ansari, 2. Ajiza Khatoon, widow of Late Ainul Ansari, 3. Amanulla Ansari, 4. Jakir Ansari, both sons of Late Usman Ansari, 5. Sakuran Khatoon, widow of Late Usman Ansari, all residents of Village –Harchanda, P.O. –Ormanjhi, Dahu, P.S. –No.32, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). 6. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Pradip (Doctor of Husbandry), son of Nawal Kishore Prasad, resident of Booti More, P.O. –Booti More, P.S. – Sadar, District –Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 : None For the Opp. Party No.6 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party nos.1 to 5, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 in-spite of repeated calls. 3. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.01.2025 passed ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 2 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No. 598 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No. 274 of 2019, whereby and where under the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi has dismissed the petition dated 16.11.2024 filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff of the said suit under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No. 74 of 2025 arising out of the said Original Suit No. 274 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to review its said order dated 15.01.2025. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 421 of 2012 but later on the same has been re-numbered as Original Suit No. 274 of 2019. In the said suit, the defendants filed their written statement on 26.11.2013, taking the plea that before filing the suit, the property in question has been transferred by execution of the sale deed by legal heirs of Sheikh Ushman including the defendant no.5 in favour of Prabha Enterprises which is the firm of the wife of the defendant no.6, as such the defendant no.6 is not a necessary party to the suit rather Prabha Enterprises is a necessary party to the suit but it having not been impleaded as a party to the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 3 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 of necessary party. It is the case of the plaintiff that Sheikh Usman is no way related to the suit land but still the plaintiff in his petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 14.11.2024, mentioned that the said sale deed no. 8272 dated 28.06.2012 executed by the legal heir of Sheikh Usman in favour of Prabha Enterprises is required to be declared null and void and inoperative and that the plaintiff is not bound by the same and with such averments in the said amendment petition dated 14.11.2024, a proposed amendment was mentioned after the prayer portion, in the said petition, wherein it has been mentioned that Prabha Enterprises be inserted as defendant no.6 and the sale deed dated 28.06.2012 be declared null and void and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and the same be cancelled and in alternatively, it may be amended and that the possession of the plaintiff be confirmed and if found dispossessed, possession may be delivered through the process of the court. 5. The defendants filed their objection to the said petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that the amendment sought is at the belated stage and the same is wholly misconceived. It was further contended that the petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment is mala-fide, vexatious and has been filed inter-alia with the mischievous design, in order to cause undue harassment to the defendants and to delay the disposal of the suit. ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 4 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 6. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi considered that the suit was filed on 28.08.2012. After closure of the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendants, the arguments of the parties were also concluded and the suit was fixed for pronouncement of Judgment. The defendants also concluded their argument. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi further considered that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy about the due diligence and what prevented the parties from incorporating the proposed amendment in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has failed to plead or aver any sufficient reason for allowing the proposed amendment. The petition for amendment was filed 11 years after filing of the suit and thus considering rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint. 7. The plaintiff thereafter, filed a petition to review the said order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi. The same was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 74 of 2025. It was contended by the plaintiff- petitioner in the said review petition that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi failed to consider the wide power of the court to amend the pleadings at any stage and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi failed to exercise such wide power under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the amendment in a technical and hypothetical ground. In para -6 to 21 of the review petition, the principle of law decided by some cases, ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 5 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 some of which is apparently erroneous, for example only the Citations has been mentioned without the name of the parties such as in para -7 AIR 1994 Caz. 148, in para -10 AIR 1998 PVH 251, in para -15 AIR 1992 MOD 318, in para -19 AIR 2000 SC ALL 90, in para -21 AIR 1985 SC 817 and by thus mentioning the principle of law settled in some cases, the review of the order dated 15.01.2025 was prayed. The defendants also filed an objection to the said petition contending therein that since by a speaking order the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi has rejected the prayer made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same does not warrant interference in exercise of the power of the review court. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi considered the principle of law that the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised for mere disagreement with the view of the court in the order impugned and without finding any justifiable reason to exercise the power of review, dismissed the review petition and fixed the case to 21.05.2025 for hearing with a direction to advance argument by the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2615 submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon the Judgment passed by it in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128 ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 6 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 wherein after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, the following principle were culled out:- “11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:— (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” 9. It is next submitted that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the case of North ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 7 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 para -16 of which reads as under:- “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166] .)” 10. It is next submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi failed to consider the overreaching rule that a liberal approach is to be adopted in consideration of the petitions for amendment and submits that since the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi failed to apply the said principles, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is next submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi failed to consider that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants by the proposed amendment. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer prayed for in this civil miscellaneous petition be allowed. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is absolutely no illegality in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi. It is submitted that since it is the specific case of ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 8 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 the plaintiff that Sheikh Ushman is in no way associated with the suit land, the natural corollary is that the execution of the said sale deed by his legal heirs has no bearing upon the case of the plaintiff. So obviously the proposed amendment cannot be termed to be for adjudication of the real question in controversy between the parties. It is next submitted that the prayer to declare the sale deed dated 28.06.2012, of which admittedly the plaintiff has knowledge during the deposition of the P.W.1 in the year 2018, made for the first time on 14.11.2024, is barred by limitation as the limitation to declare the said sale deed to be void was three years. It is then submitted that assuming for the sake of argument, that for the first time in the year 2018, the plaintiff became aware about number and date of the sale deed; though it is the case of the defendants that they were very much aware about the same on 28.06.2012 itself, still the prayer to declare the said sale deed as null and void, was hopelessly barred by time on 14.11.2024; when the proposed amendment was sought. Hence, the same has rightly been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi. It is further submitted that there is no prayer to implead Prabha Enterprises in exercise of the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for which the sine-qua-none is that the presence of a party is necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit or to ought to have been joined as a party but there is no such averment in the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 9 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 of Civil Procedure by the petitioner and without any averment regarding the ingredients to satisfy the requirement of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prayer was made, by way of the proposed amendment without any rhyme or reason to insert Prabha Enterprises, the description of which has also been mentioned as defendant no.6; when there already exists a defendant no.6, without making any prayer for deleting the existing defendant no.6, was only frivolous prayer to delay the disposal of the suit. Therefore, it is submitted that on this score also, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi has rightly rejected the same and rightly rejected the review application as well. Hence, it is submitted that this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, as already referred to in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, the principles of amendment has been culled out in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra). Serial no. iii(b) of the said principles mandates that generally an amendment be not allowed when it raises a time- barred claim. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the suit was filed in the year 2012. The written statement was filed on 26.11.2013. In the said written statement, the defendants took the plea that prior to filing of the suit, the legal heirs of Sheikh ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 10 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 Ushman including the defendant no.5 have executed the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of Prabha Enterprises and the successors of Sheikh Salim also attorned and admitted the right, title, possession and interest of the heirs of late Sheikh Ushman by putting their hands as witness to the said sale deed dated 28.06.2012. The undisputed fact remains that in the year 2018, when the P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined, the plaintiff was very much aware about the sale deed no. 8272 dated 28.06.2012. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that by 14.11.2024, when the prayer for amendment was made, the prayer has become barred by limitation. There is no averment in the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for any reason to condone the delay in making the prayer. Further, since it is the case of the plaintiff, reiterated in the said petition for amendment that Sheikh Ushman has no right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. So as per the case of the plaintiff, the execution of sale deed by his legal heirs is of no consequence so far as the case of the plaintiff is concerned. So on this score also, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment is required for the purpose of determining the real question controversy between the parties. So far as the contention of the petitioner that a liberal attitude be adopted in allowing the amendment is concerned, such liberal approach does not include amendment contrary to the provision of law and the sine-qua-none of allowing a prayer for amendment of the pleadings, is that all ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 11 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 such amendments have to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in passing the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 in Misc. Civil Application No. 598 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No. 274 of 2019. 15. So far as the order dated order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No. 74 of 2025 arising out of the said Original Suit No. 274 of 2019 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1034, para -31 of which reads as under:- “31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 12 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule” (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius : 1955 SCR 520).” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the principle regarding the scope of civil review. An order can be reviewed if there is mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record but an error that has to be detected by process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the court to exercise its power to review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, in the petition for review which was registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 74 of 2025, the plaintiff –petitioner failed to point out even a single error or mistake apparent on the face of the record of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi. It contains some judicial pronouncements, some of which erroneous ones, as already indicated above but in the absence of any error or mistake on the part of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi having been pointed out, there was no scope for review of its said order dated 15.01.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 598 of 2024 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi. Accordingly, the same was to be rejected and having rightly been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi, this Court also do not find any illegality in the ( 2026:JHHC:18857 ) 13 C.M.P. No.837 of 2025 same, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 18. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 11.09.2025 is vacated. 19. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th May, 2026 AFR/Sonu- Uploaded on 02.07.2026