Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1014 (JHR)

Sunil Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-12

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : I.A. No.2097 of 2022: 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for deleting the name of the respondent no.5-Chintamani Rajak from the cause title of the present petition, who had already died on 4th December, 2016 with a further prayer to permit him to add his heirs/legal representatives as respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 had died on 4th December, 2016 during pendency of Title Suit no.247 of 2004 (on transfer, renumbered as Original Suit no.22 of 2020) and his heirs/legal representatives, whose descriptions have been given in paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application, were already substituted in the said suit vide order dated 15th June, 2017. Hence, the name of the respondent no.5 may be permitted to be deleted and his heirs/legal representatives may be added as respondent nos.5(a) to 5(e). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the respondent no.5 and his heirs/legal representatives, whose descriptions have been given in paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application, are permitted to be added as respondent nos. 5(a) to 5(e) in the writ petition. 4. Necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the day. 5. I.A. No.2097 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of. C.M.P. No.173 of 2021: 6. The present C.M.P. has been filed against the order dated 31st January, 2020 passed by the Additional Munsif-XV, Ranchi in Original Suit no.22 of 2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment in Schedule-A of the plaint by inserting 55 decimals of land, which were not mentioned earlier due to inadvertence, has been rejected on the ground that the said amendment cannot be permitted at the stage of final argument. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit no.247 of 2004 (on transfer, renumbered as Original Suit no.22 of 2020) was filed by the petitioner and one Narayan Munda, being the plaintiffs, for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property, as mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint i.e. the land appertaining to Khata no.24, plot no.49, measuring an area of 2.04 acres, situated at village Lalpur, T.N. 197, P.S. Ranchi, now P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. According to the plaintiffs, the said land was recorded in the names of Daso Munda and Sukra Munda, both sons of Rungta Munda, by caste Munda of the same village in the revisional records of rights prepared and published in the year 1935. 8. The plaintiffs/petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Trial Court, seeking amendment in Schedule-A of the plaint by inserting additional area of the land to the extent of 55 decimals after the words “plot no.49”. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 31st January, 2020. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the said application of the petitioner, as the proposed amendment was formal in nature and the same would not have changed the nature of the suit. In fact, the said amendment is necessary for adjudication of the real controversy existing between the parties. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the present civil miscellaneous petition including the impugned order dated 31st January, 2020. The main reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application, as it appears from the impugned order, is that he failed to show his due diligence in not bringing the said fact on record by way of amendment at an early stage, which defeats the mandate of law as provided under the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Moreover, according to the Trial Court, the petitioner has not made any assertion in the plaint, so as to justify insertion of 55 decimals of land in schedule-A of the plaint. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner’s said application, as there is no specific pleading in the plaint regarding his claim of 55 decimals of land out of total area of 2.04 acres. Even the plaintiffs in their examination-in-chief have not stated anything as to how they acquired interest over the said area of the land. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of argument. Incorporation of new fact in the suit at its fag end that too in absence of any such pleading in the plaint cannot be permitted. Even the plaintiffs in their examination-in-chief have not stated anything as to how they acquired interest over the said area of the land. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of argument. Incorporation of new fact in the suit at its fag end that too in absence of any such pleading in the plaint cannot be permitted. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 31st January, 2020 passed by the Additional Munsif-XV, Ranchi in Original Suit no.22 of 2020. 12. This CMP being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.