Jharkhand High Court
Roshan Jamil Ansari vs Kriti Mahatha on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:18364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 324 of 2024
----
1.Roshan Jamil Ansari, aged about 34 years
2.Rizwan Ansari, aged about 30 years
3.Imran aged about 29 years
All sons of late Salim Ansari r/o Village Ukrid Basti, PO and PS
Sector XII District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... Plaintiffs/Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.Kriti Mahatha, son of late Durgadas Mahatha
2.Kongresh Mahatha son of late Dasranjan Mahatha
3.Amar Mahatha son of late Dasranjan Mahatha
4.Chandicharan Mahatha son of late Santu Mahatha
5.Sanjay Mahatha son of Yudhisthir Mahatha
6.Parikshit Mahatha son of Harshlal Mahatha
7.Ajit Mahatha son of Harshlal Mahatha
8.Yudhisthir Mahatha son of late Moti Lal Mahatha
9.Harsh Lal Mahatha son of late Moti Lal Mahatha
10.Raju Mahatha son of late Bishun Mahatha
All residents of Bandhgora Tola Khedadih, PO Pindrajora, Pindrajora,
District Bokaro, Jharkhand ...... Defendants/Opposite Party(s)
11.Kalimuddin Ansari, son of late Hazi Nizamuddin Ansari, resident of
Village Ukrid Basti, PO and PS Sector XII District Bokaro, Jharkhand
....Proforma Defendant/Opposite Party
With
----
Kriti Mahatha, aged about 40 years, son of late Durgadas Mahatha,
resident of Village Bandhgora, Tola -Khedadih, PO and PS Pindrajora,
District Bokaro, Jharkhand ...... .... ... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.Roshan Jamil Ansari, son of late Salim Ansari, resident of Village Ukrid
with
2025:JHHC:18364
Basti, PO and PS Sector XII District Bokaro
2.Rizwan Ansari, son of late Salim Ansari resident of Village Ukrid Basti,
PO and PS Sector XII District Bokaro
3.Imran, son of late Salim Ansari, resident of Village Ukrid Basti, PO and
PS Sector XII District Bokaro ..... Plaintiffs/ Opposite party
4.Kalimuddin Ansari son of late Hazi Nizamuddin Ansari, resident of Village
Ukrid Basti, PO and PS Sector XII District Bokaro
..... Defendant/Proforma Opposite Party
5.Kongresh Mahatha son of late Dasranjan Mahatha, resident of
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
6.Amar Mahatha son of late Dasranjan Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
7.Chandicharan Mahatha son of late Santu resident of Village Bandhgora,
Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
8.Sanjay Mahatha son of Yusdhistir Mahatgha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
9.Parikshit Mahatha son of late Moti Lal Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
10.Ajit Mahatha, son of late Moti Lal Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
11.Yusdhisthir Mahatha, son of late Moti Lal Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
12.Harsh Lal Mahatha, son of late Moti Lal Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
13.Raju Mahatha son of late Bishun Mahatha, resident of Village
Bandhgora, Tola Khedadih, PO and PS-Pindrajora, District Bokaro
.......Defendant Nos.1 to 8/Proforma Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate (C.M.P. No. 324 of 2024)
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate (C.M.P. No. 471 of 2024)
For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate (C.M.P. No. 471 of 2024)
with
2025:JHHC:18364
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate (C.M.P. No. 324 of 2024)
----
4/07.07.2025 In C.M.P No.324 of 2024, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel
appears for the petitioners and Mr. Kushal Kumar, the learned counsel appears
for the Opposite party nos.1 to 10; notice upon the O.P.No.11 has been
dispensed with as he is said to be proforma opposite party and in C.M.P No.471
of 2024, Mr. Kushal Kumar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
Opposite party nos.1 to 3; O.P.Nos.4 to 13 are said to be proforma Opposite
parties and in view of that notice upon them have been dispensed with and by
order dated 05.05.2025, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel has accepted
notice and submitted Vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P.Nos.1 to 3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in respective cases as well
as the learned counsel for the opposite parties in respective cases.
3. In both the cases, similar order is under challenge and in view of that
both the petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.
4. In C.M.P.No.324 of 2024, the prayer has been made for setting aside
order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Bokaro in Original Suit
No.10 of 2023 to the extent that the part of the amendment sought by the
petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC has been
rejected by the learned court in a petition being M.C.A. No.60 of 2023.
5. In C.M.P.No.471 of 2024, the same order is under challenge by which the
part of the amendment has been allowed by the learned court.
6. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.P.No.324
of 2024 and for the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 in C.M.P.No.471 of 2024 submits that the
Original Suit No.10 of 2023 was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of
with
2025:JHHC:18364
right, title and interest and for possession over the schedule -A land with others
prayers. He then submits that after notice the Opposite parties have appeared
and filed their written statement on 01.05.2023 mentioning inter alia about
recent survey settlement. In light of that, a petition on 30.8.2023 was filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC
for amendment of the plaint which was numbered as MCA No.60 of 2023. He
submits that the proposed amendment in the plaint is averred in paragraph
no.10, 11, 12 and 13 of the amendment petition. He submits that the rejoinder
to that amendment was also filed on behalf of the Opposite parties. He further
submits that, although, the amendment of the plaint is formal in nature and
there is no change in the nature of the suit and in spite of that, the learned
court has rejected to allow the amendment so far as the prayer portion is
concerned. He submits that, however, the learned court has allowed the
amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint. He submits in view of that,
the petition was required to be allowed in whole and the learned court has
allowed the same partly. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order
so far as the rest amendment was rejected, may kindly be set aside.
7. Mr. Kushal Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in CMP No.471
of 2024 and Opposite parties in CMP No.324 of 2024 submits that the present
dispute resolves over land of 11.21 acres situated in Mouza No. Bandhgora
under Khata No.35 bearing several plots of the respondent nos.2 to 4 are
claiming right, title and possession over the aforementioned land on the basis of
forged and fabricated document which has been evident from the record room
of Purulia record Room (West Bengal). He draws attention of the Court to the
averments made in the plaint and submits that in the plaint it has been stated
that the aforementioned land settled in favour of Sheikh Ibrahim Mahto under
with
2025:JHHC:18364
claim of Rs.1100/- and annual rent of Rs.4/- after the sale land was
surrendered by recorded tenants to the ex-land lord Shashi Bhushan Mishra and
others on 8.5.1939 and thereafter the said Sheikh Ibrahim Mahto came in
peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and respondents concerned. He then
submits that the Opposite party/defendants have contended that father of the
plaintiff kept all records with himself and after his death Bargauli took place in
the year 2021 and all the documents were misplaced. He submits that the
plaintiffs claim to have right on the same land on the basis of such settlement,
Settlement Case No.124 of 1939-40 and such documents have been obtained
from District Record Room, Purulia, in the State of West Bengal in the year
2022. He submits that written statement has been filed by the proforma
respondents before the learned court in response to the plaint denying all the
statements averred in the said plaint. He further draws the attention of the
Court para 16 of the written statement at page no.61 and submits that the
averments have been made there of practice of fraud and denial of the same
and alleged deed of surrender has been prepared and signature of dead
persons and wrong name persons also, as such father's name of Dinu Mahatha
is wrong and no person as raiyat named as Prabhu Mahto, Doman Mahatha
died prior to 1932. Kartik Mahatha also died on 13.11.1933 and the land lord
Shashi Bhushan Mishra already died before 1932 and no name of Ashwini
Mishra as son of late Dwarikanath Mishra has been shown in the alleged deed
of surrender. Manipulated date at its face of the year 1939. He submits that in
the said paragraph further plea has been taken that Surrender Case No.76/124
of 1939 is also in contravention of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and its application
before the unfounded court and authority, the plaintiff put to strict proof thereof
its genuineness otherwise the suit ultimate be dismissed because the
with
2025:JHHC:18364
genuineness otherwise the suit ultimate be dismissed because the answering
defendants stated that the recorded tenant Deenu Mahatha, Barju Mahatha,
Doman Mahatha and Kedar Mahatha never surrender one inch of land of C.S.
Khata No.10 to the ex-land lord at any point of time except Kartik Mahatha has
surrendered his share prior to 1932. He submits that all fraud has been made
and the documents have been created in the neighbouring State of West
Bengal. He submits that in view of this background, when the written statement
was filed the amendment petition has been filed and the new plea has been
taken that the said land was already the subject matter in Title Suit of 1947-48.
He submits that in view of that also, the amendment was required to be
rejected as it be deemed to be res-judicata if the property is the same. He
further submits that the land in question was already notified in the last survey
in the year 2010 and the final publication was made after following due process
and in view of that, the prayer with regard to the amendment is further barred
by limitation of 13 years and the prayer with regard to correction of the record
of right which can be only within 90 days from the date of publication and that
can be only decided under section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He
submits that in light of section 87, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Paritosh Maity and Etc v. Ghasiram Maity and Another
reported in AIR 1987 Patna 167, can be decided by the Civil Court, however,
it should be within three years. He submits in view of that, the said prayer is
also barred by time of 13 years. He submits that in a case like this, the ratio laid
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and
Developers v. Narayanswamy and Sons and Another reported in (2009)
10 SCC 84 is required to be considered and he refers to paragraph no.63 of
the said judgment, which is given below:
with
2025:JHHC:18364
"63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for
proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide
or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to
the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case;
and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline
amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be
barred by limitation on the date of application."
8. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the impugned order
may kindly be set aside.
9. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties in the respective cases and looking to the documents on
record, it transpires that after notice the defendants have appeared and filed
their written statement and one of the stand taken by them in paragraph no.16
is to the effect that the persons said to be surrendered, already died before the
execution of the surrender and only after filing of the said written statement the
amendment was sought before the learned court by way of filing said
amendment petition which has been partly allowed by the learned court.
Further the said land was said to be the subject matter of title suit of the year
1947 and for the same land, second suit will not be maintainable in light of the
provisions made under the C.P.C, however, the learned court has been pleased
to allow the same and rejected the relief portion only. It transpires that in light
with
2025:JHHC:18364
of the objection made in paragraph no.16, admission to the suit has been
brought to be withdrawn by way of filing the said amendment petition and it
has been further pointed out that the documents have been created in
neighbouring State of West Bengal and further the survey of the land in
question was also made in the year 2010 and after 13 years the said
amendment was sought to be made in the written statement filed by the
plaintiffs. Thus, it appears that the for the same property, two suits have been
filed and subsequently, the amendment has been sought on the basis of earlier
title suit of the year 1947 by the plaintiff. It further transpires that for two suits
in respect of same subject matter clearly suggest that there is attempt to seek
relief in one court and further by way of filing another suit and for that, the
amendment has been sought. Further the survey publication was made in the
year 2010 and the same has been sought to be challenged in the year 2023 by
way of filing the said amendment which is further barred by limitation in light of
the section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 so far
as the amendment is allowed, is, hereby, set aside.
11. Considering the above, CMP No.471 of 2024 is allowed, and
consequently, CMP No.324 of 2024 is, hereby, dismissed.
12. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
A.F.R.,
with
