(2026:JHHC:21405) 1 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 ------ Md. Gani @ Abdul Gani aged about 55 years son of Md. Jamal, resident of Kutchery Road, Near Panchwati Plaza, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Shreesainath (India) Private Limited, a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, represented through its Director Mr. Abhishek Singh son of Sri Brajendra Kumar Singh, both having their office at 9G, 9th Floor, Ramsakhi Tower, Tupudana, P.O. Tupudana, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Rita Biswas, wife of Late. Satyajeet Biswas and daughter in law of Late Sandhya Rani Biswas, resident of Gorakhnath Lane, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3. Bhagyashree Biswas wife of Tanmoy Mahajan, resident of Siddha Town, Sodepur Road, Opposite APC College, P.O. and P.S. Madyamgram, District Kolkata (West Bengal) 4. Sumit Biswas, son of Late Satyajeet Biswas and grandson of Late Sandhya Rani Biswas, resident of Gorakhnath Lane, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 5. Riya Biswas @ Riya Pujari daughter of Late Satyajeet Biswas and granddaughter of Lt. Sandhya Rani Biswas, resident of Gorakhnath Lane, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6. Biswajit Biswas son of Late Sandhya Rani Biswas, resident of Gorakhnath Lane, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 7. Mitali Yadav daughter of Late Sandhya Rani Biswas, resident of Ratu Road, Near Jaiswal Petrol Pump, P.O. Hehal, P.S. (2026:JHHC:21405) 2 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 8. Narendra Kaur daughter of Late Prakash Kaur and Late Kaka Singh, resident of Court Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 9. Smt. Bishan Lata Dhamija, wife of Radha Kishan Dhamija, resident of Birla Boarding Refuge Colony, Ratu Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 10 Fatima Begam wife of Abdul Bani Rangrej, resident of Rangroli, P.O. and P.S. Rangroli, District Sikor (Rajasthan) 11 Amina Khatoon wife of Md. Jamal, resident of Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 12. Md. Jamal, son of Late Haji Md. Yasin, resident of Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Parth S. A. S. Pati, Advocate For the O.P. No.9 : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.8046 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the instant interlocutory application. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands rejected as not pressed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) (2026:JHHC:21405) 3 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 I.A. No.8184 of 2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to amend the instant C.M.P. by incorporating the additional prayer of an appropriate direction to the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi or to the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division-VI, Ranchi to conduct enquiry as to under what circumstances the petitioner has been illegally and unlawfully dispossessed from his share in the suit property because writ was not issued for the entire suit land and further to add paragraph-24 (A) and 24 (B) in the instant C.M.P. in support of the said prayer. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the instant C.M.P. and unless the amendment is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application and submit that this C.M.P. has been filed to challenge the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.39 of 2026 arising out of Civil Appeal No.01 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi has rejected the prayer of the petitioner; who was appellant in the said Civil Appeal No.01 of 2020 to stay the further proceedings of Execution Case No.23 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior (2026:JHHC:21405) 4 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 Division-VI, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the opposite parties draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in the said Execution Case No.23 of 2024 and submit that the said execution case has already been disposed of, hence, the question of staying the same does not arise. Hence, the prayer made in the instant C.M.P. has become infructuous and this interlocutory application has been filed only to linger this C.M.P. by changing the nature and character of the instant C.M.P. by making some additional prayer which at best, can give rise to a fresh cause of action to file a separate suit for eviction of the unauthorized person, who according to the petitioner, has trespassed into his property. Therefore, it is submitted that the proposed amendment ought not be allowed. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the undisputed fact remains that this C.M.P. has been filed to challenge the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.39 of 2026 arising out of Civil Appeal No.01 of 2020 by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi has rejected the prayer of the petitioner who was the appellant of Civil Appeal No.01 of 2020 for staying the further proceedings of Execution Case No.23 of 2024. The undisputed fact further remains that the proceedings of the said Execution Case No.23 of 2024 has been disposed of upon delivery (2026:JHHC:21405) 5 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 of possession of the property under execution in the said execution proceeding to the satisfaction of the decree holder. So, the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant C.M.P., has become infructuous. So far as the prayer made in this interlocutory application for amendment of this C.M.P. contending therein that the petitioner has illegally and unlawfully been dispossessed from his share in the property; at best gives rise to a separate cause of action which has nothing to do with the prayer to stay the execution proceedings which has already been disposed of. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that since the prayer sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in this C.M.P. is a separate and independent cause of action having no connection with the prayer made in this C.M.P., certainly the proposed amendment, if allowed, will change the nature and character of this C.M.P. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for amendment of this C.M.P., as prayed for in this interlocutory application. Accordingly, this interlocutory application, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P No.353 of 2026 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/set aside the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in (2026:JHHC:21405) 6 C.M.P. No.353 of 2026 Miscellaneous Civil Application No.39 of 2026 arising out of Civil Appeal No.01 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi has rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the further proceedings of Execution Case No.23 of 2024 of the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-VI, Ranchi. 2. The undisputed fact remains; as is also evident from the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in the said Execution Case No.23 of 2024, that the said execution case has been disposed of by the court concerned after the delivery of possession of the property under execution, was made to the decree holder of the said Execution Case No.23 of 2024. 3. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prayer, as prayed for in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, is disposed of being infructuous. 5. In view of disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the interim order dated 13.04.2026, is vacated. 6. Registry is directed to intimate the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of July, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 22 /07/2026