Dismissed¶32

Jaleshwar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2025C.M.P./269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court Ranchi C.M.P. No.269 of 2024 Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi 15.07.2025 Article 227 Constitution of India amendment petition Order VI Rule 17 Sections 151 152 153 CPC Section 152 CPC wrong provision of law not a ground to reject M.C.A No.99 of 2024 Title Execution Case No.01 of 1997 W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 order dated 24.3.2022 SLP(C) No.10662 of 2022 dismissed 18.04.2023 Deoghar no interference petition dismissed pending petitions disposed.

What did the court decide?

A petition cannot be rejected merely because a wrong provision of law has been invoked in it; the court is competent to pass appropriate orders on such a petition. ¶32

Jaleshwar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.A No.99 of 2024 (arising out of Title Execution Case No.01 of 1997), allowing the amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Since the High Court order dated 24.3.2022 in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SLP dismissed on 18.04.2023) and the amendment petition was thereafter allowed, no case for interference with the impugned order was made out; the petition under Article 227 was dismissed and pending petition(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

A petition cannot be rejected merely because a wrong provision of law has been invoked in it; the court is competent to pass appropriate orders on such a petition.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.P. No.269 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; decided 15.07.2025) — Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.A No.99 of 2024, arising out of Title Execution Case No.01 of 1997, whereby the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC was allowed by the learned court. Background: a coordinate Bench of the High Court had, on 24.3.2022 in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012, allowed the defendants' plea, holding that no prejudice would be caused to either party and directing filing of a petition under Section 152 of the CPC; that order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10662 of 2022 on 18.04.2023, after which the trial court allowed the amendment petition. Sole grievance of the petitioner: the wrong provisions of law were invoked in the amendment petition. Held: it is well settled that merely because a provision of law has wrongly been made in a petition, that cannot be a ground to reject it, and the court is competent to pass appropriate orders on such a petition; no case of interference was made out. Petition dismissed; pending petition(s), if any, disposed of.

¶1

2025:JHHC:19197

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No.269 of 2024

¶3

----

¶4

Jaleshwar Mandal aged about 45 years son of late Maku Mandal resident of Village Naya Chitkath, PS Rikhiya, PO Mohanpur, District Deoghar

¶5

…… …. … Petitioner(s)

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.Prasad Mandal aged about 68 years son of late Kistu Mandal

¶9

3.Jagarnath Mandal aged about 59 years son of late Kistu Mandal

¶10

4.Kanhai Mandal aged about 57 years son of late Kistu Mandal

¶11

5.Budhan Mandal aged about 53 years son of late Kistu Mandal

¶12

6.Ganesh Mandal aged about 52 years son of late Kistu Mandal

¶13

All at serial nos.2 to 6 are residents of Village Chunglo PO Kasathi PS Madhupur, District Deoghar

¶14

7.Sohwa Devi aged about 61 years daughter of late Kistu Mandal and wife of Kanshi Mandal resident of Village Bhitiya Nawadih PO and PS Karon District Deoghar

¶15

8.Suma Devi aged about 66 years daughter of late Kistu Mandal and wife of late Bhupal Mandal resident of Village Daranga PS Devipur PO Dumlapur District Deoghar ……. O.Ps/Respondents

¶16

9.Tilki Debya, aged about 65 years, wife of late Maku Mandal

¶17

10.Hemlal Mandal, aged about 43 years son of late Maku Mandal

¶18

11.Mangleshwar Manadal aged about 38 years son of late Maku Mandal respondent Nos.9 to 11 resident of Village Naya Chitkath PS Rikhiya PO Mohanpur, District Deoghar

¶19

12.Shella Debya aged about 44 years wife of Suresh Mandal and Late Maku Mandal, resident of Village Kanidih PO Kanidih, PS Simultala District Jamui, Bihar …… …. Petitioners /Proforma Opposite Parties

¶20

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶22

¶23

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s)/State : Mrs Rukmini Kumari, Advocate

¶24

¶25

5 /15.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.

¶26

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.A No.99 of 2024 arising out of Title Execution Case No.01 of 1997 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned court.

¶27

Mr. Niranjan Kumar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶28

1 C.M.P. No. 269 of 2024

¶29

2025:JHHC:19197

¶30

petitioner submits that earlier the defendants have moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2012 by way of filing a petition by the defendants for amendment was rejected. He submits that on 24.3.2022 a coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the said petition and held that no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties and direction was issued to file a petition under section 152 of the CPC. He submits that against the said order of the High Court, the petitioner herein has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10662 of 2022 which was dismissed by order dated 18.04.2023. He submits that thereafter the petition was allowed by the learned trial court. He further submits that under the wrong provision of law the said petition has been filed which has been allowed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that from the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner it transpires that the petitioner is aggrieved only with regard to the provision of law.

¶32

In view of the above and considering that the High Court order dated 24.3.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10662 of 2022 and thereafter the petition has been filed and the learned court has been pleased to allow the same. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions of law has wrongly been made. It is well settled that merely because of provision of law has wrongly been made in the petition, that cannot be a ground to reject the same and the Court is competent to pass appropriate order on the said petition. In view of the above, no case of interference is made out, and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶33

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

¶34

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

SI/

¶36

¶37

C.M.P. No. 269 of 2024

Jaleshwar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaleshwar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Pritpal Singh Vs Bramhdeo Yadav

Sanjay Kumar Vs Archana Burman

Bhagwati Singh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Raj Narayan Mishra Vs Basudeo Yadav

Baijnath Gope Vs Kaushalya Devi

Pushplata Prasad through Constituted Attorney Mayank Kumar Vs Amritanshu Prasad