Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kumar Sao @ Sahu vs Bandhu Sao Son Of Late Khilodhar Sao on 11 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 55 of 2024
----
1. Ram Kumar Sao @ Sahu, aged about 55 years son of Late Jagdish
Sao
2. Smt. Sanju Devi aged about 40 years wife of Manoj Kumar Barma
3. Bhikhari Sao aged about 40 years son of Late Jagdish Sao
4. Balram Thakur aged about 41 years son of Somar Thakur
5. Malu Sao aged about 35 years son of Late Muni Sao
6. Deglal Sao @ Daglal Sao aged about 33 years son of Late Muni
Sao
7. Manohar Sao @ Manohar Prasad aged about 31 years son of Late
Muni Sao
8. Rabi Sao @ Ravi Prasad, aged about 31 years son of Late Muni
Sao
All resident of village - Serandag Pergana - Goriya, PO and PS -
Simariya, District - Chatra .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
Bandhu Sao son of Late Khilodhar Sao, resident of village - Piparadih,
PO - Bagra and PS - Simaria, District - Chatra
.... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. :- Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
----
06/11.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.10.2023
passed by learned Munsif, Chatra, in O.S. No.176 of 2018 whereby
the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
CPC for amendment in written statement has been dismissed by the
learned Court.
3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the plaintiff instituted O.S. No.176 of 2018
for declaration and confirmation of possession over the suit land
and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiff and if the plaintiff is found dispossessed
from any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit,
Khas possession be given to the plaintiff, after evicting defendants
therefrom. The prayer in the suit is also made that the sale deed
No.4650 dated 07.09.2015, sale deed No.3442 dated 14.10.2016
and sale deed No.2226 dated 25.06.1969 are void, illegal, in
operative and void ab initio as well as same is not binding upon the
plaintiff with regard to Khata No.26, under Khewat No.2/2, total plot
No.25, total area 6.43 acres, Khata No.88, under Khewat No.2/4,
total plots - 18, total area 4.41 acres, Khata No.19 under Khewat
No.2/1, total plots - 4, and total measuring area 4.65 acres of
village - Jabara, PS - Simaria, PS No.105, Pragana - Goriya.
4. He submits that Jitan Sah @ Sundi was the common
ancestor of plaintiff and defendants and Jitan Sao remained in
peaceful possession over the suit land till his lifetime and
subsequently jamabandi was opened. He further submits that on
summon the defendants/petitioners appeared in the suit and filed
their written statement wherein at paragraph No.25 of the second
line of the written statement word "not" was missing and in same
para and same line the word "not" mentioned before the word
denied and for that the petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC for amendment which has been rejected by the learned
Court. He submits that the learned Court has given the wrong
finding that the nature of the suit property will be changed. He
further submits that on the basis of the compromise the said suit
was sought to be declared and the compromise is being disputed by
the petitioners. He relied in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Nitaben Dinesh Patel versus Dinesh
Dahyabhai Patel reported in (2021) 20 SCC 210. On this
ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set
aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite
party submits that Khata No.26 under Khewat No.2/2, total area
6.43 acres of village - Serendag, PS - Simaria, District - Chatra
recorded in C.S. operation as record of right in the name of Jitan
Sah s/o Kinu Sah in remark column as mentioned ex-landlord
manager court of wards minzanib Raghunandan Prasad Bhagat, the
detail of Khata No.26, 88 and 19 described in schedule C of the
plaint. He submits that the panchayati was held between Bandhu
Sao, Munni Sao, Ramsewak Sao and Others with regard to partition
among them with regard to suit land on 01.06.2016 and several
villagers put their signature likewise before the panches on the
same, but the terms and conditions had not been complied between
the parties vide the said panchnama. He submits that since the
terms and conditions of the compromise was not followed by the
parties that is why the suit has been instituted. He submits that if
the word "not" twice in paragraph No.25 will be allowed then the
entire nature of the suit will be changed and that is a clear
admission in favour of the plaintiff.
6. It is an admitted position that on the basis of compromise
the said suit has been instituted and the compromise petition has
been brought on record by way of filing the counter affidavit on
behalf of the sole respondent and the petitioners wherein have also
signed the said petition and in light of that paragraph No.25 of the
written statement, it has been stated as under :-
25. That the statement made in para 11 of the plaint is
also true and correct and hereby not denied and it is also
mentioned in their para with regard to suit land vide dated
01.06.2016 and several villagers put their signature likewise
purchasers on the same is also not true and correct but it is
totally wrong to say that the defendants have disobeyed the
decision of Panches between the parties vide Panchnama dated
10.06.2018.
It is submitted that each co-sharers are still in
possession over their suit land according to their share and suit
land is not joint and there is no unity of title and unity of
possession in between the parties and there is also no provision
or repartition.
7. In the second line of the said para the averments of para 11
is said to be not denied and in the 5th line by way of the said
amendment it is sought to be denied by way of putting the word
"not" and if both the words have been allowed to be deleted and
inserted the right accrued in favour of the petitioners will be taken
back as their admission is there in favour of the plaintiff.
8. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings
but the effect of substitution of paragraph 25 is not making
inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace
the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the
defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are
allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied
the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants.
Moreover, there is no explanation given as to why the petitioners
have came forward with this plea at the belated stage.
9. The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC provides that no
application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite
of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of the trial. In the present case, this is not even
the pleaded case of the petitioners before the learned trial court in
the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the
time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of
amendment that cannot be accepted as the ground to allow any
amendment in the pleadings at the belated stage.
10. So far the judgment relied by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in the case of Nitaben Dinesh Patel versus
Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (supra) is concerned in that case it was
not a position that something has been admitted in favour of the
plaintiff in the written statement. In the case in hand in paragraph
No.25 right has already accrued in favour of the plaintiff in view of
that if the amendment is allowed that will be taken back which is
against the mandate of law and in view of that the judgment relied
by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not helping the
petitioners.
11. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Court, as
such this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
A.F.R.
