Dismissed¶45

Sunil Kumar v. Manoj Kumar

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2025C.M.P./1116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; C.M.P. No. 1116 of 2025; Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary; decision dated 04.12.2025; amendment of plaint at appellate stage; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; addition of necessary parties not on trial record; introduction of land beyond plaint schedule; no explanation for delay; setting up new case by garb of amendment; Title Suit No.44/2001; Civil Appeal No.15/2020; Garhwa; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The proposed amendment sought to add necessary parties who were not parties in the trial Court and to introduce land which did not form part of the scheduled land in the plaint, all without any explanation for the delay in filing it at the appellate stage. ¶44

Sunil Kumar Vs Manoj Kumar — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:36521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1116 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Sunil Kumar

¶5

Sanjay Kumar

¶6

Vijay Kumar

¶7

Pankaj Kumar

¶8

Chandan Kumar

¶9

Kanchan Kumar Jaiswal All sons of Late Ashok Prasad Sao @ Ashok Prasad

¶10

Poonam Devi, daughter of Late Ashok Prasad Sao

¶11

Sushila Devi, wife of Late Ashok Prasad Sao All residents of Village Lotdag, P.O. Lotdag, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

Manoj Kumar, son of Onkar Prasad

¶14

Satish Prasad, son of Late Badri Sao

¶15

Binod Kumar Gupta

¶16

Binay Kumar Gupta

¶17

Subodh Kumar Gupta

¶18

Nos. 3 – 5 are sons of Late Nandlal Sao

¶19

All residents of Village Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa

¶20

Sarla Devi, wife of Ram Narayan Gupta and daughter of Nandlal Sao, C/o Hari Narayan Sahu, resident of Ishwarganj, Awashanganj, near Talab, P.O. and P.S. Awashanganj, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) 7. Sushila Devi, wife of Dr. Gopal Gupta, daughter of Nandlal Sao, resident of Sarrath Plywood and Glass Store, Ashapuri Sarnath, P.O. and P.S. Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

¶21

Garima Gupta

¶22

Suman Gupta

¶23

Nos.8 and 9 are daughters of Subhash Chandra Gupta

¶24

Bhanu Gupta, son of Subhash Chandra Gupta Nos.8 to 10 are residents of Sarrath Plywood and Glass Store, Ashapuri Sarnath, P.O. and P.S.Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) 11. Indu Gupta, wife of Vinod Gupta and daughter of Nandlal Sao, resident of M/s Sarnath General Store, Golchakkar, Ashapuri, P.O. and P.S Ashapuri, Varanasi, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

¶25

Vijay Kumar

¶26

Ajay Gupta

¶27

Anup Gupta

¶28

Nos.12 to 14 are sons of Late Ram Chandra Sao

¶29

Meera Kumari

¶30

Urmila Kumari

¶31

Sharmila Kumari

¶32

Renu Kumari

¶33

Nos.15 to 18 are daughters of Late Ram Chandra Sao Nos.12 to 18 are residents of Village Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶35

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate : For the Opp. Parties

¶36

2025:JHHC:36521

¶37

Order No.02 / Dated : 04.12.2025

¶38

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.44/2001 which was filed for the following reliefs: -

¶39

I. For declaration that suit land was part and partial of the co- parcenary occupancy Raiyati land of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had title and possession over the suit land.

¶40

II. For a declaration that sale deeds executed in the year 1934, 1941 and 1944 were ab initio void and defendants acquired not right, title or interest by virtue of these sale deeds.

¶41

The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.01.2008 against which plaintiffs preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No.15/2020. In the said appeal, plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for the proposed amendment.

¶42

The learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the amendment petition vide order dated 17.06.2025 inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs/appellants under the garb of amendment, were trying to set-up a new case at the appellate stage. No explanation was even given for the delay in bringing the said amendment petition.

¶43

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that amendment will not change the nature of the suit.

¶44

This Court is not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The amendment inter alia seeks to add the necessary parties, who were not parties in the trial Court, it further introduces land which did not formed part of schedule land in the plaint. And all this without any explanation for the delay to file it at the appellate stage. In this view of matter, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶45

Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

¶46

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶47

Anit

Sunil Kumar v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Devi Vs Ranthi Khariyain

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Sampa Mandal

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Smt Aloka Nanda Sarkar

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Zeenat Yasmin

Dharmadeo Ray Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Bandhu Oraon Vs Muni Devi