Jharkhand High Court
Suman Kumar Singh vs Manju Devi on 5 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:22148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1409 of 2023
Suman Kumar Singh, Son of Babulal Singh, resident of House No.
9/B, Gurudwara Basti, Babulal Bagan, P.O.- Kalimati, P.S- Sakchi,
District- East Singhbhum.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Manju Devi, Wife of Madan Kumar Singh, resident of N.P.C.C.
Colony, Qtr. No. C/8, P.O. and P.S.- Valmiki Nagar, District-
West Champaran (Bihar)
2. Meena Devi, Widow of Late Naresh Singh
3. Aman Kumar Singh, Son of Late Naresh Singh
4. Puja Kumari
5. Laxmi Rani Singh,
Both are daughters of Late Naresh Singh
6. Most. Mahamati Devi, Widow of Late Babulal Prasad @
Baburam
7. Manoj Singh, Son of Late Babulal Prasad @ Baburam
All are resident of C/Town, Gurudwara Basti, P.O. & P.S.-
Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum
8. Sangeeta Singh, Wife of Sunil Kumar Singh, resident of Qtr.
No.B-193, Sector-III, HEC Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. ..... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate
---------
th
Order No. 10 /Dated: 05 August, 2025.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Defendant/ petitioner has preferred the instant CMP before this
Court against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division)- IV, Jamshedpur, in Original Suit No. 105 of 2017
whereby and whereunder the petition of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC has been allowed to bring the following amendments:
2025:JHHC:22148
(i) In the paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint of the instant suit,
the defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are mentioned as performa
defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5.
(ii) To add the property appertaining to Khata No. 235, Plot No.
3683 a, b, c, d 3688, 3690, 3691, 3692, 3691/3921 and
3690/3926 within Ward No. 07, Jamshedpur measuring total
area of 7.75 hectare in Para-3 of the plaint.
(iii) To add Khata No. 235, Plot No. 3683 a, b, c, d, 3688, 3690,
3691, 3692, 3691/3921 and 3690/3926 within Ward No. 07
Jamshedpur in the schedule of the instant suit.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that
so far, the first amendment for change at Paras 1 and 2 from performa-
defendant to defendant is concerned, they do not have any serious
objection. The main objection is with regard to incorporating the landed
property at the stage after the evidence and argument, when the case
was posted for judgment to include the property in the Schedule.
Therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether there was joint family
property or not?
3. It is further argued that since the property, in question has been
sold out and the third-party interest has been created, therefore, it will
turn to the disadvantage of those parties, if the proposed amendment is
brought within the Schedule of instant partition suit.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.1 that as
per the impugned order, the opportunity has been given to the petitioner
to file written statement and also to lead evidence on the point. However,
the property which constituted part of the joint family property and is not
included in the schedule, it will result in anomalous situation and proper
partition would not be done.
5. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC limits the power to allow
amendment after the commencement of trial but grants discretion to the
Court to allow amendment, if it feels that the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial in spite of the due diligence.
Law is settled that leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real
2025:JHHC:22148
question in issue between the parties to be raised on the pleadings,
where the amendment will occasion no injury to the Opp. Party(s). The
proposed amendment should not alter and substitute the cause of action
on the basis of which, the original lis was raised. Inconsistent and
contradictory plea to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive
plea of facts is also impermissible.
6. In the present case, the proposed amendment is mainly with regard
to the incorporation of the schedule property in the plaint. Normally there
cannot be partial partition and, therefore, it is incumbent in partition
suit(s) to disclose the entire joint family property in the schedule.
7. The sole ground on which the amendment resisted is that the part
of the said proposed schedule property has already been sold by the
coparceners. This can be considered at the stage of preparation of final
decree, but cannot be a ground to bring the property(s) being
incorporated in the schedule of the plaint.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order and accordingly, the instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A.,
if any, stands disposed of.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Simran-Sandeep/
