JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-XII, Ranchi in M.C.A No.839 of 2024 arising out of Original (Title) Suit No.750 of 2019 whereby the petition dated 21.06.2024 filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint due to subsequent events has been rejected. 3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on 17.12.2019 the petitioners instituted a suit being Original (Title) Suit No.750 of 2019 with a prayer for declaration of their absolute right, title and interest over the suit property detailed in schedule-A and schedule-B and for restraining the defendant from disturbing their peaceful possession. 4. He submits that the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners as described in the plaint inter-alia is that a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2016 the plaintiff/ petitioner no.1 purchased a piece of land measuring eight decimals of M.S.Plot No.82 and area of 16.86 decimals of land of M.S. Plot No.83, Mouza Morabadi from one Hari Krishna Bajaj and like-wise, the properties have also been purchased. He submits that the defendant has produced forged sale deed in said proceeding being M-578 of 2017 alleging that he purchased the land from Mrs. Kalyani Chatterjee vide sale deed dated 17.05.2010 whereas Kalyani Chatterjee died as far back as on 19.09.1989 itself, and therefore, the plaintiffs/petitioners contended that the said sale deed produced by the defendant before the S.D.M, Ranchi is a forged document. He submits that in paragraph 12 of the plaint, the statement of the suit property which has been soled by the sale deed has been disclosed. He further submits that the plaintiff /petitioners have filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi with regard to fraudulent transaction by way of sale seed which was registered as Fraudulent Registration Case No.28 of 2018-19 against the defendant for annulment of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 allegedly executed by Kalyani Chatterjee, although she died in 1989 itself. He further submits that the plaintiff /petitioners have filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi with regard to fraudulent transaction by way of sale seed which was registered as Fraudulent Registration Case No.28 of 2018-19 against the defendant for annulment of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 allegedly executed by Kalyani Chatterjee, although she died in 1989 itself. After adjudication and by an order dated 8.2.2021 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No.28 of 2018-19 annulled the same deed dated 18.05.2010 executed in favour of the defendant. Being dissatisfied with that the defendants have moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1491 of 2021 which was allowed by the order dated 22.4.2024 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has got no power to annul the registered sale deed and he submits that thereafter the petition has been filed for amendment to the effect that in paragraph no.17 at page no.8, in place of plaintiff, the word ‘plaintiffs’ may kindly be allowed to be added and further prayer was made being relief no.’A’, i.e., words “be deleted” be deleted and substituted with the line: “and, as such, Title is not or any way affected by the absolutely forged, null, manufactured and void ab initio deed of sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered as Deed No.11669 entered in Book No.1 Volume No.502 pages 101 to 136 of the office of the District Sub Registrar at Ranchi is in favour of the defendants” and further at page-8 of para-17 in relief (b) to add the word: “If they are found dispossessed from the suit property”. He submits that the learned court has erroneously rejected the said petition. He relied in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 and refers to paragraph no.71 of the said judgment which is as under: “ 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)” 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that controversy with regard to the said property on the forged document and in view of that the said amendment is necessary and the learned court has wrongly rejected the same. 6. Learned counsel for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has rightly appreciated the law and has rejected the same. He submits that even in the plaint in clear terms there is no disclosure about the sale deed and in view of that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. 6. Learned counsel for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has rightly appreciated the law and has rejected the same. He submits that even in the plaint in clear terms there is no disclosure about the sale deed and in view of that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. He relied inn the case of Mallavva and Another v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) By Legal Heirs and Others reported in 2024 INSC 1021 and refers to paragraph nos.34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment which are given below: “34. The decision of this Court in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is of no avail. In the said case, the Court was concerned only with Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The Court noted that while enacting Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the legislature had designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court noted that the word “first” has been used between the words “sue” and “accrued”. The Court said that the same would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date when the right of sue first accrued. In other words, the Court held that successive violation of the right would not give rise to fresh cause and the suit would be liable to be dismissed if it was beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued. 35. The decision in the case of Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Anr. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260 , relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is also of no avail. In the said case, this Court observed as under: “14. The submission on behalf of the original plaintiff (now represented through her heirs) that the prayer in the suit was also for recovery of the possession and therefore the said suit was filed within the period of twelve years and therefore the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, cannot be accepted. The submission on behalf of the original plaintiff (now represented through her heirs) that the prayer in the suit was also for recovery of the possession and therefore the said suit was filed within the period of twelve years and therefore the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession is a consequential prayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation of the sale deed dated 19-4-1996 and therefore, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief claimed and not the consequential relief. When a composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancelled. Therefore, the suit, which was filed by the original plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be substantive therefore the same was clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the learned trial court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. As such the learned first appellate court was justified and right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and consequently dismissing the suit. The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside a well-reasoned and a detailed judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dismissing the suit and consequently restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.” 36. Thus, it appears that two reliefs were prayed for. One for cancellation of the Sale Deed and the second for recovery of possession. The Court treated the relief for possession as consequential prayer and the relief for cancellation of Sale Deed as the substantive prayer. 7. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order and the prayer is barred by limitation. 8. The Court treated the relief for possession as consequential prayer and the relief for cancellation of Sale Deed as the substantive prayer. 7. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order and the prayer is barred by limitation. 8. It is an admitted position that the said sale deed was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner/plaintiff and the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in favour of the plaintiff annulling the said sale deed which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1491 of 2021 and this Court has allowed the same by order dated 22.4.2024 to the effect that, the Deputy Commissioner has got no power and this title suit was already instituted for declaration of right, title and interest and for delivery of possession. 9. In light of that, it appears that the said property was also subject matter in the said suit and the said annulment of the sale deed has been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner and this Court has set aside the same considering that the Deputy Commissioner has got no power. In such a situation, it transpires that to settle the dispute at once, that document is necessary. In paragraph no.17 only in place of ‘plaintiff’ the word “plaintiffs” has been sought to be added and further for determining the suit, the said sale deed is necessary and that will not cause prejudice to the defendant. 10. In view of that, the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-XII, Ranchi in M.C.A No.839 of 2024 arising out of Original (Title) Suit No.750 of 2019, is hereby, set aside. 11. The petition dated 21.06.2024 filed by the petitioner is allowed subject to the cost of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) to be paid to the defendant before the learned court. 12. The learned court will allow the said amendment and defendant/ O.P. will have the right of additional written statement to that effect. 13. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 14. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.