Thamu Dhibar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4371 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      C.M.P. No. 382 of 2021
                            ------

Thamu Dhibar                       .... .... .... Petitioner
                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rameshwar Tiwari
3. Mumtaz Ansari
4. Pervez Rahman
5. Riyasatt Hussain
6. Shankar Singh
7. Shankar Ghose
8. Amrendra Tiwari                 .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C. (Mines)-I Mr. Diva Kant Roy, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I

Oral Order 04/ Dated :02.11.2022

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.II), Jamtara in Original Suit No.04 of 2012 whereby the amendment petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, has been rejected.

2. The petitioner had filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and the suit was dismissed by order dated 28.05.2018.

3. Civil Appeal No.37 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment which has been remanded to the learned Court below under Order 41 Rule 23(A) of the C.P.C.

4. After the remand of the case the defendants were added in the suit being defendant nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and the written statement was filed by the newly added parties.

5. After filing of the written statement, the petition has been filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint in the relief portion which has been rejected by the impugned order.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that amendments are necessary for the ends of justice consequent upon defendant nos.2 to 7 being impleaded and written statement being filed on their behalf. The amendment is not to change the nature of suit but is only intended to amend the relief portion.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Praveen Akhouri that in absence of verification of the amendment petition as required under Order 6 Rule 15, the petition for amendment cannot be allowed.

8. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that learned court below has rejected the petition because cause of action for cancellation of sale deed and valuation of Court fees has not been mentioned by the plaintiff.

9. As far as Court fee is concerned, the petitioner undertakes to make the payment after amendment of the plaint.

10. In view of the fact that defendant nos.2-7 are the purchasers of the part of the suit land who have been added subsequently after remand of the case, therefore, the plaintiff has right to seek proper reliefs against these defendants. The merit of granting relief can be considered by the learned Court below only at the stage of conclusion of trial.

11. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the petition for amendment of claim is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit