Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunil Kumar vs Manoj Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 7503 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7503 Jhar
Judgement Date : 4 December, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Sunil Kumar vs Manoj Kumar on 4 December, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
                                                                  2025:JHHC:36521




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         C.M.P. No. 1116 of 2025
                                ------

1. Sunil Kumar

2. Sanjay Kumar

3. Vijay Kumar

4. Pankaj Kumar

5. Chandan Kumar

6. Kanchan Kumar Jaiswal All sons of Late Ashok Prasad Sao @ Ashok Prasad

7. Poonam Devi, daughter of Late Ashok Prasad Sao

8. Sushila Devi, wife of Late Ashok Prasad Sao All residents of Village Lotdag, P.O. Lotdag, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.... .... .... Petitioners Versus

1. Manoj Kumar, son of Onkar Prasad

2. Satish Prasad, son of Late Badri Sao

3. Binod Kumar Gupta

4. Binay Kumar Gupta

5. Subodh Kumar Gupta Nos. 3 - 5 are sons of Late Nandlal Sao All residents of Village Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa

6. Sarla Devi, wife of Ram Narayan Gupta and daughter of Nandlal Sao, C/o Hari Narayan Sahu, resident of Ishwarganj, Awashanganj, near Talab, P.O. and P.S. Awashanganj, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

7. Sushila Devi, wife of Dr. Gopal Gupta, daughter of Nandlal Sao, resident of Sarrath Plywood and Glass Store, Ashapuri Sarnath, P.O. and P.S. Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

8. Garima Gupta

9. Suman Gupta Nos.8 and 9 are daughters of Subhash Chandra Gupta

10. Bhanu Gupta, son of Subhash Chandra Gupta Nos.8 to 10 are residents of Sarrath Plywood and Glass Store, Ashapuri Sarnath, P.O. and P.S.Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

11. Indu Gupta, wife of Vinod Gupta and daughter of Nandlal Sao, resident of M/s Sarnath General Store, Golchakkar, Ashapuri, P.O. and P.S Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

12. Vijay Kumar

13. Ajay Gupta

14. Anup Gupta Nos.12 to 14 are sons of Late Ram Chandra Sao

15. Meera Kumari

16. Urmila Kumari

17. Sharmila Kumari

18. Renu Kumari Nos.15 to 18 are daughters of Late Ram Chandra Sao Nos.12 to 18 are residents of Village Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

2025:JHHC:36521

Order No.02 / Dated : 04.12.2025 Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.44/2001 which was filed for the following reliefs: -

I. For declaration that suit land was part and partial of the co- parcenary occupancy Raiyati land of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had title and possession over the suit land.

II. For a declaration that sale deeds executed in the year 1934, 1941 and 1944 were ab initio void and defendants acquired not right, title or interest by virtue of these sale deeds.

2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.01.2008 against which plaintiffs preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No.15/2020. In the said appeal, plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for the proposed amendment.

3. The learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the amendment petition vide order dated 17.06.2025 inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs/appellants under the garb of amendment, were trying to set-up a new case at the appellate stage. No explanation was even given for the delay in bringing the said amendment petition.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that amendment will not change the nature of the suit.

5. This Court is not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The amendment inter alia seeks to add the necessary parties, who were not parties in the trial Court, it further introduces land which did not formed part of schedule land in the plaint. And all this without any explanation for the delay to file it at the appellate stage. In this view of matter, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter