Kanchan Kumari vs Smt. Lalita Devi
2025 Latest Caselaw 6299 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kanchan Kumari vs Smt. Lalita Devi on 8 October, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  2025:JHHC:31129



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           C.M.P. No. 142 of 2025

Kanchan Kumari, Wife of Shri Ramesh Kumar, R/o Karamtoli, Ahir Toli, P.O.-
Ranchi University & P.S.-Lalpur, District Ranchi, Pin-834008
                                                  .....  ....   Petitioner
                                Versus
1. Smt. Lalita Devi, Wife of Late Birendra Kumar, R/o Karamtoli, Ahir Toli,
   P.O.-Ranchi University & P.S.-Lalpur, District Ranchi, Pin-834008
2. Rajesh Tiwari, S/o Late Shashi Tiwari, R/o New Nagra Toli, P.O. & P.S.-
   Lalpur, District Ranchi, Pin-834001
                                           ...       ....     Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner              : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
                                  Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties        : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                  Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
                        ------

Order No. 06 / Dated : 08.10.2025.

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and is aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 27.05.2024 of the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiff proposed the following amendment: -

"That in paragraph 12 of the plaint in line 8 th after the word 'in' and before the word 'side' the word "Northern' may be deleted and word 'Eastern' may be inserted likewise in the line 9th after the word 'in' and before the word 'side' of word 'Southern' may be deleted and word 'Western' may be inserted by way of amendment".

2. The Trial Court rejected the amendment petition on the ground that the said amendment petition was filed after commencement of trial and the plaintiff failed to explain due diligence which prevented it to incorporate in the original plaint.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment is to rectify certain typographical error in para-12 of the plaint and is in consonance with the judgment delivered in Partition Suit No. 522 of 1961. There is specific pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased the part of the share of Sashi Yadav who was the heir and descendant of Mahabir Mahli @ Mahabir Gope. Share of Mahabir Gope crystallized pursuant to the judgment in Partition Suit No.522 of 1961, which is reflected in the judgment and decree in the partition suit. The defect was typographical error 2025:JHHC:31129

and could not be detected at the time of filing of the plaint and the moment it has been detected this, the amendment petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petition for amendment is bereft of any explanation with regard to due diligence on the part of the plaintiff.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is clarificatory in nature intended to correct certain typographical errors in the plaint and it will not prejudice the defence or will not amount to withdrawal of any admission. Under the circumstance, this civil misc. petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -