Jharkhand High Court
Lal Amit Nath Shahdeo vs The Deputy Commissioner Cum District ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 1151 of 2023
----
1.Lal Amit Nath Shahdeo, aged about 37 years, son of late Jaikumar Nath
Shahdeo
2.Lal Jitendra Nath Shahdeo, aged about 51 years, son of late Luxmi Nath
Shahdeo
3.Lal Santosh Nath Shahdeo, aged about 54 years, son of late Birendra
Nath Shahdeo
All 1 to 3 resident of Village Chetag, PO and PS Balumath, District-
Latehar ...... .... ... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.The Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Latehar, resident of
Office at D.C. Office Latehar P.O. and P.S. District Latehar
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi Division at Doranda,
P.O. Hinoo, PS Doranda, District Ranchi
3.Director Menonite Mission at P.O. Chandwa, P.S Chandwa, District
Latehar
4.Lal Vijay Nath Shahdeo
5.Lal Aman Nath Shahdeo
6.Lal Sudarshan Nath Shahdeo
7.Lal Satyendra Nath Shahdeo
Sl.No.4 to 7 Sons of late Luxmi Nath Shahdeo
8.Lal Arun Nath Shahdeo
9.Lal Ranjit Nath Shahdeo
10.Lal Sanjit Nath Shahdeo
Sl.No.8 to 10 are sons of late Lal Birendra Nath Shahdeo
11.Lal Pankaj Nath Shahdeo, son of late Sant Nath Shahdeo
All sl.4 to 11 resident of Village Chetag, PO and PS Chandwa,
District Latehar ...... .... ...Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
----
14/10.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Application
No.4/2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.20/2018 by learned District Judge-I,
Latehar whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition of
the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
3. Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Title Suit and
they have instituted Title Suit No.35 of 2010 for declaration of right, title and
interest in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit land and further declaration that
the plaintiffs shall have no binding effect of the incorrect entry in the R.S.
record of right. He submits that on notice, respondent/defendant no.3 namely
Menonite Mission has appeared and filed written statement in the suit whereas
the defendant no.3 claimed 8.48 acres of land in question and defendant no.2
was Forest Department had also filed written statement, but, not participated in
the trial. He submits that after the argument of both the sides the learned court
has been pleased to pronounce the judgment by the judgment dated 12.4.2018
partly allowing the suit and partly dismissing the same. He then submits that
against that judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred civil appeal being Civil
Appeal No.20 of 2018.
4. He submits that in the appeal an amendment petition was filed under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC for clarifying that the correct new khata number and plot
number that is, new Khata No.98 and R.S. Plot No.259 has been created from
old C.S. Khata No.18 and C.S. Plot No.195 and 196 and 5.43 acres of land of
the plaintiffs have been included. He submits that the said amendment is formal
in nature and in spite of that the same was allowed by the learned first
appellate court.
5. He submits that subsequently the case has been transferred to another
court wherein another application was filed being Civil Application No.4 of 2022
praying therein to add the in the prayer portion for direction to the revenue
authority to correct the wrong entry and or to create the new khata number of
the plot in question which has been rejected by the learned court by the order
dated 3.6.2023. He submits that the said prayer was formal and in spite of that
the learned court has been pleased to reject the same and in view of that, the
said order may kindly be set aside.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the
second amendment was filed belatedly and the learned court has rightly passed
the said order.
7. It is an admitted position that the said suit was decided by the judgment
dated 12.04.2018 and partly the prayer of the petitioners was allowed. The
Appeal No.20 of 2018 was preferred. In appeal, the petitioners have preferred
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 22.7.2019 which was allowed by
the order dated 18.2.2020 and thereafter the plaintiffs filed the second
amendment petition praying therein to add that in the new Survey Record of
rights, that is, R.S. Khatiyan where R.S. Khata No.98 R.S. Plot 259 measuring
area of 5.43 acres have been included may kindly be declared void, illegal and
without any basis and further be pleased to cancel and set aside the same and
further be pleased to direct the defendant no.1 competent authority to correct
the new record of rights or to create new khata number and plot number equal
to the area of the suit property as mentioned in the schedules the basis of
which with the sole record of rights.
8. Admittedly, the Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow the
amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding in order to
determine the real question in controversy between the parties with a rider 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
parties sought for amendment could not have raised the same before
commencement of trial. A reading of the application seeking amendment to
disclose the lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in seeking the
amendment and there is no jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer for
amendment requiring interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldeo Singh and Others v.
Manohar Singh and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 has held that
the amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement are not to be
weighed in the same analogy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
adding a new ground of defense of substituting, adding or altering a new cause
of action does not raise the same as adding, altering or substituting a new
cause of action holding that the court has wider power to allow the amendment
of pleadings in such manner and in such terms as it appears to the court to be
just and proper but what has been discussed hereinabove in the case in hand,
the entire khata number and area have been sought to be changed that too at
the appellate stage and earlier an amendment petition was allowed and after
such a belated stage such petition has been filed and in view of that the
learned court has been pleased to dismiss the same.
9. The Court finds that if such a petition is allowed, it will change the nature
of the entire suit, and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated
03.06.2023 and hence, C.M.P. No.1151 of 2023 is dismissed.
10. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
A.F.R.
