Latif Mian And Ors. Vs Hazrat Mian And Ors.

¶1

2026:JHHC:6151

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 496 of 2016

¶4

Latif Mian, Son of Late Sobrati Mian

¶5

Idani Bibi, Wife of Latif Mian (Substituted vide order dated 29.07.2025).

¶6

2(a) Md. Azad Ansari.

¶7

Abbas Mian @ Md. Abbas

¶8

Kurban Mian @ Md. Kurban Ansari No.3 and 4 are sons of Late Ekram Mian, all are residents of Village Jaspur, P.O. Loharbi, P.S. Panki, District Palamau.

¶9

… … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Hazrat Mian, S/o Late Kashim Mian

¶12

Abdul Rahim Mian, S/o Late Sadhu Mian

¶13

Basarat Mian, S/o Late Sadhu Mian

¶14

Idrish Mian, S/o Late Suleman Mian

¶15

Md. Intab Mian

¶16

Md. Ansar Mian

¶17

No. 5 and 6 sons of Late Nabijan Mian, all are residents of Village Jaspur, P.O. Laharsi, P.S. Panki, District Palamau.

¶18

... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents

¶19

Razzaque Mian (Substituted vide order dated 29.07.2025) 7(a) Naim Ansari, S/o late Razzaque Mian

¶20

Sattar Mian

¶21

No. 7 and 8 Son of Late Nanhakan Mian, residents of Village Jaspur, P.O. Laharsi, P.S. Panki, District-Palamau.

¶22

... ... Defendants/Respondents

¶23

… … Respondents

¶24

¶25

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶26

¶27

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶28

¶29

14 /09.03.2026

¶30

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶31

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶33

“For issuance of any appropriate writ/rule/order/direction for quashing the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned Civil

¶34

1

¶35

2026:JHHC:6151

¶36

Judge II, Palamau in Title Suit No. 88 of 2010 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint has been allowed at belated stage when the suit was posted for hearing final argument and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are legally entitled to.”

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petitioners are amongst the defendants in the suit and they are aggrieved by the impugned order by which petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. has been allowed at much belated stage when the case was fixed for final hearing.

¶38

5. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit was filed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property based on registered title deeds. The suit was contested.

¶39

6. As per the petition seeking amendment, it was asserted that from perusal of the documents of defendants it appeared that the vendor of the defendants had earlier executed a sale deed being sale deed No. 12415 of 1972 in the name of Sadhu Mian, father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and after execution of the deed, the sale deed No. 4403 dated 07.05.1981 was executed in the name of the father of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and it was asserted that Ramrekha Singh had no title over the suit land for conveying any title to any person in the year 1981. The deed was exhibited as B/1 by the defendants and on the basis of which the amendment was sought for in the following manner:-

¶40

Proposed Amendment

¶41

“That after para ‘5’ of the plaint the following para ‘5’ A be added:

¶42

“ Para ‘5A’. That Rekha Singh and other the vendor of the defendants, had not right and title to execute any deed in the year 1981 to any other person, with respect to the suit land when Rekha Singh had earlier executed sale deed No. 12415 of 1972 Exhibit B/1 in favour of the father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs in order to avoid any complicity with respect to the share got sale deed No. 9202 of 1992 [Exhibit 1(a)] in their favour and in order to continue the possession and title earlier acquired by Exhibit-B/1.

¶43

2

¶44

2026:JHHC:6151

¶45

It is therefore prayed that amendment sought be kindly allowed”

¶46

7. This Court finds that the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 13.10.2015 has passed a detailed order allowing the petition seeking amendment inspite of the fact that the case was fixed at the stage of arguments. The learned court while passing the impugned order has taken care of the fact that the entire question involved in connection with the title was as to whether Sadhu Mian had acquired any right, title and possession through the registered deed.

¶47

8. This Court finds that the learned trial court has passed a wellreasoned order allowing the amendment and considering the fact that the amendment had come at belated stage but has also taken care to allow the amendment with cost and has also recorded that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner.

¶48

9. Apparently, the suit was filed seeking declaration of title and amendment was filed by referring to the registered deeds produced by the defendant during their evidence. This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order which is a well-reasoned one.

¶49

10. There is no merit in this writ petition accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶50

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶51

12. Interim order is vacated.

¶52

13. Since the matter has remained pending before this Court since 2016 and the suit is of the year 2010, the learned court is directed to take steps for expeditious disposal.

¶53

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through “Fax/e-mail”.

¶54

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶55

09.03.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded on:- 11.03.2026

¶56

3

Latif Mian And Ors. v. Hazrat Mian And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latif Mian And Ors. v. Hazrat Mian And Ors.

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

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Tinku Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Diwakar Kumar Alias Diwakar Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Situ Bedia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Sandhya Rani Ghosh And Ors. Vs Smt Sova Devi