[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Latif Mian vs Hazrat Mian on 9 March, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:6151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 496 of 2016
1. Latif Mian, Son of Late Sobrati Mian
2. Idani Bibi, Wife of Latif Mian (Substituted vide order dated
29.07.2025).
2(a) Md. Azad Ansari.
3. Abbas Mian @ Md. Abbas
4. Kurban Mian @ Md. Kurban Ansari
No.3 and 4 are sons of Late Ekram Mian, all are residents of Village
Jaspur, P.O. Loharbi, P.S. Panki, District Palamau.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Hazrat Mian, S/o Late Kashim Mian
2. Abdul Rahim Mian, S/o Late Sadhu Mian
3. Basarat Mian, S/o Late Sadhu Mian
4. Idrish Mian, S/o Late Suleman Mian
5. Md. Intab Mian
6. Md. Ansar Mian
No. 5 and 6 sons of Late Nabijan Mian, all are residents of Village
Jaspur, P.O. Laharsi, P.S. Panki, District Palamau.
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents
7. Razzaque Mian (Substituted vide order dated 29.07.2025)
7(a) Naim Ansari, S/o late Razzaque Mian
8. Sattar Mian
No. 7 and 8 Son of Late Nanhakan Mian, residents of Village Jaspur,
P.O. Laharsi, P.S. Panki, District-Palamau.
... ... Defendants/Respondents
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
: Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
14/09.03.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For issuance of any appropriate writ/rule/order/direction for
quashing the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned Civil
2026:JHHC:6151
Judge II, Palamau in Title Suit No. 88 of 2010 contained in
Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the petition filed by
the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking
amendment in the plaint has been allowed at belated stage
when the suit was posted for hearing final argument and for
such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are legally
entitled to."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ
petitioners are amongst the defendants in the suit and they are
aggrieved by the impugned order by which petition under Order VI
Rule 17 of C.P.C. has been allowed at much belated stage when the
case was fixed for final hearing.
5. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit was filed for
declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property
based on registered title deeds. The suit was contested.
6. As per the petition seeking amendment, it was asserted that
from perusal of the documents of defendants it appeared that the
vendor of the defendants had earlier executed a sale deed being sale
deed No. 12415 of 1972 in the name of Sadhu Mian, father of the
plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and after execution of the deed, the sale deed
No. 4403 dated 07.05.1981 was executed in the name of the father of
the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and it was asserted that Ramrekha Singh
had no title over the suit land for conveying any title to any person in
the year 1981. The deed was exhibited as B/1 by the defendants and
on the basis of which the amendment was sought for in the following
manner:-
Proposed Amendment
"That after para '5' of the plaint the following para '5' A be
added:
" Para '5A'. That Rekha Singh and other the vendor of the
defendants, had not right and title to execute any deed in the
year 1981 to any other person, with respect to the suit land
when Rekha Singh had earlier executed sale deed No. 12415
of 1972 Exhibit B/1 in favour of the father of plaintiff No. 2
and 3. The plaintiffs in order to avoid any complicity with
respect to the share got sale deed No. 9202 of 1992 [Exhibit
1(a)] in their favour and in order to continue the possession
and title earlier acquired by Exhibit-B/1.
2026:JHHC:6151
It is therefore prayed that amendment sought be kindly
allowed"
7. This Court finds that the learned trial court vide impugned
order dated 13.10.2015 has passed a detailed order allowing the
petition seeking amendment inspite of the fact that the case was fixed
at the stage of arguments. The learned court while passing the
impugned order has taken care of the fact that the entire question
involved in connection with the title was as to whether Sadhu Mian
had acquired any right, title and possession through the registered
deed.
8. This Court finds that the learned trial court has passed a well-
reasoned order allowing the amendment and considering the fact that
the amendment had come at belated stage but has also taken care to
allow the amendment with cost and has also recorded that the
amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner.
9. Apparently, the suit was filed seeking declaration of title and
amendment was filed by referring to the registered deeds produced by
the defendant during their evidence. This Court finds no illegality in
the impugned order which is a well-reasoned one.
10. There is no merit in this writ petition accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
12. Interim order is vacated.
13. Since the matter has remained pending before this Court since
2016 and the suit is of the year 2010, the learned court is directed to
take steps for expeditious disposal.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through "Fax/e-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
09.03.2026
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:- 11.03.2026
