(2026:JHHC:21080) 1 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 1096 of 2025 Karan Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, son of late Prabhu Dayal Singh, resident of Barkiboa, PO – Bhuli, PS- Tetulmari, District – Dhanbad. … … …Petitioner Versus 1. Brajendra Singh Dua. Son of not known to the petitioner, resident of Grewal Colony, Bekarbandh, Hirapur, PO & PS – Hirapur, District – Dhanbad. 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of late Prabhudayal Singh, resident of Barkiboa, PO – Bhuli, PS – Tetulmari, District – Dhanbad. … … …Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad in O.S. No. 1357 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 07.08.2024 filed under Order – VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. r/w Section 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad. (2026:JHHC:21080) 2 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner as plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 1357 of 2020 with the prayer for declaration of right, title, interest of the plaintiffs over the scheduled property and for recovery of the possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint that Arjun Mahto is the son of Dhaniram Mahto and Arjun Mahto inherited the property of his father Dhaniram Mahto after the death of Dhaniram Mahto. The same has categorically been mentioned in para no. 02 of the plaint. With such pleadings of the plaintiffs, the trial proceeded and both the parties adduced their evidence and the case was fixed for final argument. During the recording of the evidence, the witnesses of the plaintiffs admitted that Arjun Mahto was the son of Dhaniram and in their cross- examination, the witnesses denied that Santu Mahto was the father of Arjun Mahto. When the matter stood thus, on 07.08.2024, the plaintiffs came up with the proposed amendment to dislodge the genealogy of Dhaniram Mahto by introducing Santu Mahto to be the son of Dhaniram Mahto and Arjun Mahto to be the son of Santu Mahto and that Santu Mahto is dead. The same was objected by the contesting defendant. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad, considered that in the fag end of the trial, the plaintiffs intends to introduce a new case which is even contrary to the evidence put forth by their witnesses and the proposed amendment is directed to nullify the admissions made by the witnesses of the plaintiffs and to prejudice the defendant, and by thus considering, rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint. (2026:JHHC:21080) 3 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is intended to eradicate the minor error occurred in the plaint. It is next submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction. It is then submitted that that proposed amendment is formal in nature and unless the same is allowed, the prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs. It is next submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad, failed to consider that the plaintiffs came to know about the error only at the stage of hearing of the argument. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Singhvi & Another. Vs. Heero Dhankani & Others. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 432, wherein it is observed in the facts of that case that where the proposed amendment do not have the effect of drastically altering the nature of the defence or withdrawing an admission made earlier by the defendants, in such cases, the Court has discretion to permit, at any stage of the proceedings, such amendment in the pleadings as would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. Kapoor Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 142, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that relinquishment of claim as contemplated under Section 12(3)(ii) of the Specific Relief Act and the rights to compensation need not specifically be pleaded and can be made at any stage of litigation. So, delay by itself, may (2026:JHHC:21080) 4 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 not stand in the way of plaintiffs claiming the relief unless the defendant establishes prejudice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Baldev Singh & Others. Vs. Manohar Singh & Another. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It is lastly submitted that since the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same having been illegally rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad, the prayer as prayed for in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 8. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Sanjeev Builders (P) Private Ltd. & Another. reported in (2022) SCCR 941, paragraph no. 70 of which reads as under:- “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i). Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii). 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 6 Rule 17CPC. (iii). The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (2026:JHHC:21080) 5 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 (i). If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii). To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv). A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: (i). 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. (ii). The amendment changes the nature of the suit. (iii). The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or (iv). By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v). In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi). 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. (vii). 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. (viii). Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix). 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. (x). 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. (xi). 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 amendment (2026:JHHC:21080) 6 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summed up conclusions regarding the principles where the amendment of the pleadings can be granted and submits that in para no. (iii)(ii)(b) of the said paragraph no. 70, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically mentioned that the amendments can be allowed if the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the parties which confer a right on the other side. 9. It is next submitted that by clear admission of the plaintiffs in para no. 02 of the plaint, that the Arjun Mahto is the son of Dhaniram Mahto and thereby ruling out the contention which is now supposed to be incorporated by the proposed amendment that Santu Mahto is the father of Arjun Mahto and father of such admission is not only in the pleadings but even in para no. 23 of the cross-examination of P.W. 3, wherein the P.W.3, who is one of the plaintiffs, has categorically stated that the name of the father of Arjun Mahto is not Santu Mahto. It is next submitted that this admission has conferred a right on the defendant no. 01 because that has established the case of the defendant. Hence, it is submitted that learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad, has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer for the proposed amendment of the plaint. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this C.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. (2026:JHHC:21080) 7 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 10. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, in view of the principles of law regarding the circumstances where a trial court can allow amendment of the pleadings, as already discussed in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case is that, an amendment of the pleadings shall not be allowed where the proposed amendment seeks to withdraw any clear admission made by the parties, which confers a right on the other side. The second principle is that, if the amendments does not result in any irreparable prejudice to the Opposite Party or divest Opposite Party of an advantage which it has secured as a result of admission by the parties seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be liberally allowed and the third principle is that where the amendment is necessary for the Court to effectively adjudicate the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the O.S. No. 1357 of 2020 is lingering in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad, since 07.08.2024 at the stage of argument. The undisputed fact remains that the plaintiffs in no uncertain manner have admitted in para no. 02 of the plaint that Arjun Mahto is the son of Dhaniram Mahto. Not only that P.W.2 who is also one of the plaintiffs, in para no. 04 of his examination in chief, filed in shape of an affidavit, has also admitted the same. P.W.3 who is another plaintiff, went a step ahead in para no. 23 of his cross-examination by answering the question put by the defendant by stating that the name of father of Arjun Mahto is not Santu (2026:JHHC:21080) 8 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 Mahto. Now the defendant claims that if this amendment is allowed, the defendant will be prejudiced because the cross-examination is already over and a denovo trial will have to be done. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to establish before this Court as to how the change in parentage of Arjun Mahto when it is not disputed by the parties that Arjun Mahto is one of the heirs of Dhaniram Mahto, is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate the main issue in controversy between the parties. 12. Under such circumstances, as because of seeking this amendment, the trial of the suit has been stalled for nearly two years at the stage of argument, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed amendment is not required for determining the question of main issues in controversy between the parties and allowing the proposed amendment will result in denovo trial of the suit, as the evidence of both the parties has already been over and the plaintiffs intends to incorporate amendment which is contrary to the admission made by the plaintiffs themselves, who has been examined as PW 2 and PW3 in their examination -in -chief as well as cross-examination. Thus, the proposed amendment is designed to withdraw a clear admission made by the plaintiffs not only in their pleadings but in their evidence also. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad in O.S. No. 1357 of 2020 warranting interference of this court with the impugned order in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, this C.M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed. (2026:JHHC:21080) 9 C.M.P. No.1096 of 2025 14. In view of the dismissal of the C.M.P., the interim order dated 03.12.2025 is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th July, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - 20/07/2026