Saroj Devi @ Saroj Devi Jain, wife of Late Shanti Lal Jain, resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 1087 of 2025 ----- Saroj Devi @ Saroj Devi Jain, wife of Late Shanti Lal Jain, resident of Near Railway Crossing, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, Dist.- Koderma (Jharkhand) … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma. 3. Land Acquisition Officer, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma. 4. Binod Rana 5. Pramod Rana O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 both are sons of Prasadi Rana, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 6. Sanjay Kumar Jain son of Raj Kumar Jain, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 7. Mithu Sen Gupta wife of Sudhir Kumar Nandi, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 8. Santosh Kumar son of Ramdas Prasad, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 9. Santosh Prasad Barnwal son of Narayan Modi, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 10. Sanjay Barnwal 11. Murli Modi 12. Sankar Modi O.P. Nos. 10 to 12 are sons of Mahavir Modi, residents of Village Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 13. Manoj Yadav son of Kewal Yadav, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 14. Jivlal Yadav son of Late Nirpat Yadav, resident of Village Barwadih, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 15. Sanjay Kumar Gupta son of Brijkishor Lal Gupta, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 16. Nisha Singh wife of Ajay Kumar, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 17. Amol Himat Rao Patil son of Himat Rao Patil 18. Tanaji Balaso Jadhav son of Balaso Jadav O.P. Nos. 17 and 18 both are residents of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 19. Banti Rani wife of Anant Kumar, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. 20. Shati Devi wife of Nandu Lal Wakliwal, resident of Bodam Bazar, Hazaribag, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag. 21. Amarchand Ghosh son of Late Bhairav Chand Ghosh, resident of Village Telaiya, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma. ----- … …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, law is settled that so far as seeking amendment before commencement of trial is concerned, it is not mandatory in nature. However, there is no unfettered right of seeking such amendment which may result in changing the nature of the suit or amounts to withdrawal of an important admission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 SCC On Line SC 1128, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd Vs Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd: 3 2025:JHHC:35341 “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 hyper-technical 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. 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. the 71.11. Where before amendment 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 sought is 4 2025:JHHC:35341 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 [VijayGupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)” 6. On applying the above guidelines, this Court is of the view that at the stage of argument, the amendment with respect to (I) and (IX) will have the effect of changing the nature of the suit and the claim at the fag end of trial. 7. However, so far as the proposed amendment from (II) to (VIII) is concerned, they are more or less typographical errors and clarificatory in nature and will cause no prejudice to the defendant’s case. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proposed amendment at (I) and (IX) are rejected and with respect to the rest, it is allowed. This civil misc. petition is partly allowed. Pending, I.A. if any,
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- 2025:JHHC:35341 For the Petitioner For the State Oral Order : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-1A ----- 04 / Dated : 26.11.2025 1. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2021 by which the amendment application filed by the petitioner on 20.04.2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected for incorporating the following amendments in the written statement: That in Para 03 of 1st line after word "Khata No." 659 That in para 01 of written statement in 5th line after the “(I) word “area” 6.5 decimals be deleted and in its place 15 decimals be added. (II) be replaced with 669. That in Para 05 1st line the word defendants be deleted (III) and after word "father" the sentences "of first party number 5, 6 (Grandfather of first party nos. 8 & 9)" be added. Similarly, after word own "nephew" (brother's son) be deleted and in its place brother be added. In 6th line after full stop (.) “The defendant's father", be deleted and in its place, Nand Lal Bakliwal be added. In 7th line the word "Fufa" be deleted and in its place "Sister" will be added. In 9th line the word “father of defendants namely" be deleted. In 11th line "Fuwa" be deleted and in its place, sister be added. In 14th line before the word "Children" "grand" word will be added. In 16th line the word "defendants" be deleted and after the word "father" the word "of first party nos. 05 and 06" be added. In 24th line the word after "plaintiff" "1" be added. In 25th line the word before "and" & "defendant" be deleted and in its place “1st party no. 05 & 06” be added. In Para 6, 1st line the word "defendant" be deleted and (IV). in its place 1st party nos. 05 & 6 be added. In 2nd line the word after "in" "her fuwa" may be replaced with "his sister". In 7th line "defendants" word be replaced with “1st party nos. 5 & 6” In 10th line before the word decimals "7-1/2" be replaced with "8-1/2". In Para 07, in 5th line the word "defendants" be (V). replaced with “1st party nos. 5, 6, 8 to 10”. In 12th line the word "defendants" be deleted and in its place " 1st party nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10” be added. (VI). "information". (VII). In Para 9, in 2nd line the word "defendant" be replaced with “1st party nos. 5, 6, 8 to 10”. In Para 08 in the line the word "force" be replaced with 2 2025:JHHC:35341 (VIII). In Para 10, in 3rd line the word "defendants" be replaced with " 1st party nos. 5, 6, 8 to 10”. Similarly, in 6th line the "defendants" be replaced with "first party nos. 5, 6, 8 to 10” before the word "about" and after the word "the". (IX). That after "Para 14th” a new "Para 15" be added as "That the second parties except party no. 7 are the purchaser of the carpet areas of the shops situated at "Madhuban Complex" a multistoried building at Khata No. 669, Plot No. 7710 area 15 decimals. The purchasers only purchase the constructed carpet area of the shops not the land of said khata. It is mentioned on all the sale deeds executed by Saroj Devi Jain. The compensation of the constructed area may be given to the purchasers the first party nos. 1 to 4 have no any objection, but the compensation of land and the rest land and construction may kindly be given to first party nos. 1 to 4.” 2. 3. Heard both sides. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proposed amendments are clarificatory in nature and will not change the nature of the suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the amendment petition and submitted that the case is at the stage of argument and no explanation has been given with regard to the exercise of due diligence on the part of the petitioner/defendant for not incorporating these amendments in the written statement. Further the amendment as proposed at (I) and (IX) seeks to change the very relief for which the land acquisition case has been filed. Under these proposed amendments, the area is sought to be increased from 6.5 decimals to15 decimals, and further the compensation for land of Madhukam Complex Multistoried Building, execution is sought to be incorporated which is not in the written statement. 5.
Decision
stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra Uploaded 28.11.2025 5