Dismissed¶30

MD Zakir Hussain v. Ali Hussain

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Amendment of plaint

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2025C.M.P./378/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; amendment of plaint; correction of suit value Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.25 Lakhs; typing mistake; belated second amendment after 7 years; formal amendment; withdrawal of admission in written statement; partition suit; T. (P) Suit No.186/2016; Original Suit No.769 of 2020; M.C.A. No.72 of 2022; Additional Civil Judge, Dhanbad; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; Varun Pahva v. Renu Chaudhary (2019) 15 SCC 628 distinguished; ex parte hearing against opposite parties; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The trial court gave cogent reasons for rejecting the amendment petition, and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2022. ¶29

MD Zakir Hussain Vs Ali Hussain — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.11.2022 rejecting the plaintiff-petitioner's amendment petition (M.C.A. No.72 of 2022) for correction of suit value suffers from illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The trial court gave cogent reasons for rejecting the amendment petition, and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2022.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The second amendment petition was filed after 7 years, the plea was absent from the petitioner's earlier amendment petition, and no material was placed before the court showing how the bona fide mistake was detected after 7 years; amendments in a routine way at a belated stage cannot be allowed.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Supreme Court decision in Varun Pahva v. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628, relied on by the petitioner, does not assist him: the facts there were different (the suit was inadvertently not represented by the company and was filed in a different capacity), whereas here an earlier amendment petition omitted the plea and the second petition sought to withdraw admissions made in the written statement.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 227 — Amendment of plaint — Correction of suit value from Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.25 Lakhs alleged to be a typographical mistake — Partition suit (T. (P) Suit No.186/2016, renumbered Original Suit No.769/2020) instituted in 2016; defendants appeared and filed written statement — Amendment petition (M.C.A. No.72/2022) filed on 23.02.2022, i.e., after 7 years and after filing of written statement, the plea having been omitted from the petitioner's earlier amendment petition — No material placed before the court to show how the bona fide mistake was detected after 7 years — Amendments in a routine way at a belated stage cannot be allowed — Trial court (Additional Civil Judge, Dhanbad) gave cogent reasons; no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 — Varun Pahva v. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628, distinguished: there the suit was inadvertently not represented by the company and was filed in a different capacity, whereas here admissions in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn — Petition dismissed; heard ex parte as opposite party nos. 1 to 6, duly served, did not appear.

¶1

2025:JHHC:14914

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 378 of 2023

¶3

Md. Zakir Hussain, aged about 61 years, son of Late Niyamat Mian, resident of Village- Darda, P.O. Jhagrahi, P.S. Barora (Muraidih), Dist.Dhanbad … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Ali Hussain

¶6

Khalid Hussain

¶7

Mukhtar Hussain

¶8

All sons of Late Khatir Hussain

¶9

Taibun Nisa, wife of Late Rahid Hussain

¶10

Naushad Mian, son of Late Bhikhu Mian

¶11

Ahmad Hussain, son of Late Niyamat Mian

¶12

All are resident of Village- Darda, P.O. Jhagrahi, P.S. Barora (Muraidih), Dist.- Dhanbad … Opposite Parties

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :

¶15

08/10.06.2025 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

2. Notices upon opposite party nos. 1 to 6 have already been served, however, they have chosen not to appear and this matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to them on07.04.2025 and in spite of that, they have not appeared and, as such, this petition is being heard in absence of opposite party nos. 1 to 6.

¶17

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to set-aside the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No.72 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No.769 of 2020, whereby, the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court.

¶18

4. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner filed T. (P) Suit No.186/2016 which was renumbered as Original Suit No.769/2020 and in the plaint, the plaintiff prayed for partition

¶19

-1-

¶20

C.M.P. No. 378 of 2023

¶21

2025:JHHC:14914

¶22

of the suit properties being the common ancestor of Rahmali Mian as shown in Schedule-A. He further submits that the defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement stating therein that the suit is not maintainable under different provisions of law and on the other grounds. He submits that the learned trial court has framed the issue and after examining one of the witnesses, it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner that there is typing mistake in the suit for value and thereafter, the plaintiffpetitioner filed amendment petition on 23.02.2022 registered as M.C.A. No.72/2022 stating therein that due to typing mistake suit value has been mentioned as Rs.5 Lakhs instead of Rs.25 Lakhs and prayer was made for correction in the suit value, which was rejected by the learned Court. He further submits that the learned Court has rejected the same in spite of the fact that it was a formal amendment and, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary , reported in (2019) 15 SCC 628 .

¶23

5. The Court has gone through the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 and finds that the suit was instituted in the year 2016 itself. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement. The petitioner herein previously also filed amendment petition to amend the plaint and that fact was not pleaded in the said amendment petition and second petition was filed after 7 years. Further, no material was placed before the learned Court to suggest how the bona fide mistake was detected after 7 years. The learned Court has stated that lenient view is required to be taken in allowing the amendment petition, however, all the amendment in a routine way at a belated stage,

¶24

-2-

¶25

C.M.P. No. 378 of 2023

¶26

2025:JHHC:14914

¶27

cannot be allowed.

¶28

6. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are different. Inadvertently the suit was not represented by the company and it was filed in different capacity and that was the issue in that case. So far as the case in hand is concerned, earlier one amendment petition was filed and in that petition, such plea was not taken and only after filing of the written statement second amendment petition was filed, wherein, the admission made therein sought to be withdrawn with regard to the suit and in view of that, the said judgment is not helping the petitioner.

¶29

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds that the learned Court has given cogent reason in rejecting the amendment petition and, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶30

8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Ajay/

¶33

-3-

¶34

C.M.P. No. 378 of 2023

MD Zakir Hussain v. Ali Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Zakir Hussain v. Ali Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs Smt. Sumitra Sahu

Smt. Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Sahu @ Baleshwar Prasad Vs Kundan Baraik

Gautam Nag Sarkar Vs Manish Agarwal

Kabil Mia Vs State of Jharkhand

Kanchan Choudhary Vs Neelam Kumari