Asgar Mian Vs Sakila Khatoon

Both residents of New Karim Ganj, Road No.3, Tekari, P.O & P.S Tekari, DistrictGaya, Bihar and permanent address Village –Garjamu, P.O. Gudio, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag

¶13

3 . Ajmeri Khatoon, D/o Late Tabarak Hussain

¶14

4 . Kamrun Khatoon, D/o Late Tabarak Hussain

¶15

5 . Nuresha Khatoon, D/o Late Tabarak Hussain

¶16

6 . Mahboob Mian, S/o Late Shahbali Mian

¶17

7 . Abda Khatoon, W/o Mahboob Ansari

¶18

From Serial Nos.3 to 7 are Residents of Village Garjamu, P.O & P.S Barhi, District Hazaribag

¶19

8 . Hasina Khatoon, D/o Late Shahbali Mian

¶20

9 . Mansoor Mian, S/o Late Chotu Mian

¶21

10 . Samina Khatoon, D/o Late Chotu Mian

¶22

11 . Akida Khatoon, D/o Late Chotu Mian

¶23

Serial Nos.8 to 11 are Residents of Village Garjamu, P.O & P.S Barhi, District Hazaribag …. …. Opposite Parties

¶24

¶25

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶26

---For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.7 : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the Opposite Party Nos.8, 9 & 11 : Mr. Harshit Sahay, Adv.

¶27

¶28

07/Dated: 07^th January, 2026

¶29

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

2. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order

¶31

dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior

¶32

1 C.M.P No.712 of 2025

¶33

2026: JHHC:320

¶34

Division) at Hazaribag in Title Suit No.94/2011 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected.

¶35

3. The present petitioners, who are plaintiffs has instituted a suit being Title Suit No.94 of 2011. The relevant paragraphs of the title suit are quoted herein

¶36

below:-

¶37

“1 . That the old Survey Khata No.24 of village Garjamu P.S Barhi No.106 total Area 4.83 (4.77) amended vos dt. 19.12.2012) acres were recorded in the name of one Niro Mian consisting of several plots out of which there was one plot bearing No.982 area 0.43 acres, which is more fully described in Sech. A of the plaint which is the suit land.

¶38

4 . That there was a revisional survey final publication of which was made in the year 1967. In this revision survey out of the old plot No. 982 area 0.43 acres two separate plots were carved out viz New Plot No. 1975 area 0.10 acres and New Plot No.1976 area 0.34 acres. In this the plaintiffs aforesaid inherited and came in exclusive and actual possession over the plot No.982 of old Khata No.24 equivalent to New Khata No. 92 New Plot No.1975 area 10 acres and New Khata No.52 New Plot No. 1976 area 0.34 acres. It may be mentioned here that the father of the plaintiffs had constructed before revisional survey of 1967 a small house on Plot No.1975 on land measuring 0.01 acres long ago. Later the plaintiffs and Deft. No. 6 re constructed a brik house in which the plaintiff No. 1 Asgar Mian is running a village level dispensary and Deft. No. 1, who is a Unani medicine doctor practicing at Gaya visits Garjamo and has had a friendly relationship with the Deft. No. 5 (6) amended vos dt. 12.03.2012) and Plaintiff No. 1.

¶39

The plaintiffs have erected a boundary wall enclosing entire old plot No. 982 of old Khata No. 24 and use the same as Gharbari and raise maize. sarson, potato, and vegetables etc.”

¶40

Reliefs:-

¶41

(a) After adjudication it may be declare that plaintiffs have indefeasible perfect right and title and actual uninterrupted physical possession over the suit land/properties ever since the cadastral survey till today.

¶42

(b) If the plaintiffs are dispossessed during the pendency of this suit the possession to the plaintiffs may be restored.

¶43

4. It further appears that the written statement has been filed by the defendants and thereafter, plaintiffs had filed amendment petition dated 22.05.2025 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking amendment

¶44

of the plaint to correct the clerical error. The proposed amendments are quoted herein below:-

¶45

2 C.M.P No.712 of 2025

¶46

2026: JHHC:320

¶47

“1 . That in para 4 in the fourth line in the beginning the word 'new plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'Plot no.1992' and in the same manner in the seventh line 'New plot no. 1975' be again corrected as 'plot no. 1992' as well as in the same manner in the 11^th line of the same para the word '1975' be corrected as '1992'.

¶48

2 . That in para 5 of page no. 3 in the second line the word 'plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'plot no. 1992' and in the same manner in the 6^th line the word 'plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'plot no. 1992' as well as in the 11^th line in page no. 4 'new plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'plot no. 1992' and in the same way in 19^th in the middle portion 'plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'plot no. 1992' and in the same way in the 23^rd line 'plot no. 1975' along with '(old) be deleted and in its place 'plot no. 1992' be inserted.

¶49

3. That similarly in the para 6 of page 4 in the first line ‘new plot No.1957’ be corrected as ‘plot no.1992’.

¶50

4 . That in page No.6 of para 8 'new plot no. 1975' be corrected as 'plot no. 1992' and in the same manner in para 9 in the middle 4^th line ‘plot no.1975’ be corrected as ‘plot no.1992’

¶51

5 . That in the Schedule A in 7^th page in the fourth line 'plot no. 1975' be deleted and in its place 'plot no. 1992' be inserted.”

¶52

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the description of land starts from the last cadastral survey having plot No.982 which has been subsequently, in revisional survey, split up in two plots numbered as 1992 and 1976. Inadvertently, instead of ‘1992’ it has wrongly been inserted as ‘1975’ in the said pleadings. It is nothing but a mistake of the Advocate. This mistake has been found and accordingly, the amendment has been made. It will not change the nature of the suit as because neither the identification is changed, nor any pleading is being changed.

¶53

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that he has given the entire written statement on the basis of defending the plot No.1975, and as such, the prejudice will be caused to the defendant, if the identity of the land is changed.

¶54

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the disputed land having plot No.1992 in the last cadastral survey, which has subsequently in revisional survey has been split up in two plots numbered as 1992 and 1976. Thus, the identification as well as basis of claim does not change. It is merely a typographical error.

¶55

3 C.M.P No.712 of 2025

¶56

2026: JHHC:320

¶57

8. It is well settled principle of law that amendment has to be allowed for doing justice regarding the entire procedure.

¶58

9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Hazaribag in Title Suit No.94/2011 is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

¶59

10. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed accordingly after giving due opportunities to the parties.

¶60

11. With the above observation and direction, the present civil miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶61

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶62

Dated 07^th January, 2026 Raja/-Uploaded on 12.01.2026

¶63

4 C.M.P No.712 of 2025

Asgar Mian v. Sakila Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asgar Mian v. Sakila Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Dept. of Panchayati Raj

Paysi Pahariya Vs Abdul Malek

Sumitra Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand,through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu

Steel Authority of India Ltd., through J.T. Kongari Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman

Sant Tulsi Apartment through Its Developer Kavita Prasad Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation