Kanchan Choudhary Vs Neelam Kumari

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:14897 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 308 of 2024

¶3

Kanchan Choudhary, aged abut 58 years, son of late Shiva Kant Choudhary, resident of R.N. Sharma Campus, Near Carmel School, Polytechnic Road, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Neelam Kumari, wife of Ramanuj Prasad

¶7

Ramanuj Prasad, son of late Harish Chandra Prasad, Both resident of Babudih, Bisunpur, P.O. ‘B’ Polytechnic, P.S. Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad

¶8

.................... Opp. Parties

¶9

---------

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate

¶12

………. 08/Dated: 10/06/2025

¶13

Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶14

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶15

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶16

of India for setting aside order dated 12.12.2023 passed in Misc. (Civil) Application No. 513 of 203 arising out of Original Suit No. 16 of 2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-V, Dhanbad whereby petition under Order VI Rule-17 read with section 151 CP.C seeking amendment in the written statement filed by the opposite parties herein/defendants in the suit has been allowed.

¶17

Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff and has instituted the said suit seeking inter alia declaration of title and recovery of possession over a piece of land of area 4.54 decimals in plot no.450 under Khata No. 20 situated at Mouza Bisunpur, Anchal Dhanbad. The defendants namely, Neelam Kumari and Ramanuj Prasad filed their written statement on 05.09.2017 and they have taken several grounds for

¶18

¶19

( 2025:JHHC:14897 )

¶20

dismissal of the suit. He further submits that trial commenced on 09.03.2022 and it was pending for evidence of the plaintiff. He further submits that defendants Neelam Kumari and Ramanuj Prasad filed an application being MCA No. 392 of 2023 on 29.08.2023 seeking leave to amend the written statement by way of correction under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which was allowed by the learned court. He submits that the learned court has wrongly allowed the said petition by the impugned order. The spirit of the said order under Order VI Rule 17 as well as Rule 16 C.P.C. has not been taken into consideration. In that view of the matter, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

¶21

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that learned court by reasoned order has been pleased to allow the amendment petition and it was allowed only to the effect that paragraph allowed to be corrected in consonance with the document which was already brought on record and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order.

¶22

The Court has perused the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 and finds that in paragraph 11 has only allowed to correct the pleadings in consonance with the document which was already on record and only vendor’s name has been allowed to be corrected in the light of sale deed. Further the sale deed no. 7431 was allowed to be corrected as 7432 considering that there is typographical error and further the learned court has rightly held that by allowing the amendment petition the finding should not be there on the merit of the case.

¶23

It appears that only formal amendment was allowed. As such there is no illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶24

¶25