Both sons of Late Doman Mahto v. Kanahai Sahu

8. Jogendra Mahto Village Pundag, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi 8(a) Paro Devi, W/o Texi Mahto, R/o Village-Malsirin, P.S.-Pithoria, Ranchi 8(b) Tijo Devi, W/o Sri Govind Mahto, R/o village Kuitaitu, Namkum, Ranchi 9. Banes Teli, S/o Dukhana Teli 10. Bhudhan Devi, W/o Late Pusuwa Teli 10(a) Shyamsundar Mahto, S/o Late Pusuwa Teli 10(b) Seema Devi, W/o Late Suresh Mahto 10(c) Shiv Kumar, S/o Late Suresh Mahto 10(d) Sandhya Kumari 10(e) Bidya Kumari Both D/o Late Suresh Mahto All residents of village Kuitiatu, Namkum, Ranchi 11. Ramprabhu Teli, S/o Late Dhuruva Teli 12. Lakhan Teli, S/o Late Dhurva Teli All residents of village Pundag, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 13. Sukermani Devi, W/o Panchu Sahu, R/o Village-Sugnu, P.S. Sadar, P.O.- G.P.O., District-Ranchi

14. Pokwa Devi, W/o Indru Teli, D/o Kenhaiy Teli, R/o village-Murhu, P.S.

15. Churwa Devi, W/o Sri Amin Sahu, R/o village Sahhan, P.O. & P.S. Argora, Burmu, Dist.-Ranchi District-Ranchi … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate ------ Order No. 23 / Dated : 17.06.2025.

1. The petitioners are plaintiffs whose Partition Suit No. 16 of 2007 was decreed vide judgment dated 31.03.2010 and it attained finality as no appeal was preferred against it. 2. On the basis of the schedule of property, as mentioned in the plaint, preliminary decree was drawn. 3. Petitioners moved the learned Trial Court for amendment in schedule of the plaint for including some seven plots under Khata No. 6 which were not mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The petition for amendment was rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the land, which was sought to be included, was recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights as joint property and also in the revisional survey record of rights. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents to the petition for amendment, it was not a joint family property. Despite this, petition for amendment has been rejected. It is argued that the amendment, sought to be made, is typographical in nature which will not affect the merit of case and is permissible at any stage in view of the ratio laid down by the