Jharkhand High Court
Anil Prasad Aged About 62 Years vs Brajesh Verma on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 770 of 2024
Anil Prasad aged about 62 years, son of late Raghunandan Prasad,
resident of village Pithoria, P.O. and P.S. Pithoria, District-Ranchi at
present residing at Devi Mandap Road, Near Sardar Decorators, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi ......... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Brajesh Verma, son of late Vijay Verma, resident of Ratu Road,
Alkapuri, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi
2. The Syndicate Bank (now stands merged with Canara Bank) through
the authorized officer, K.C. Roy Memorial School Branch, Kantatoli, P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Lalpur and District-Ranchi ....... Opposite Parties
With
C.M.P. No. 771 of 2024
Anil Prasad aged about 62 years, son of late Raghunandan Prasad,
resident of village Pithoria, P.O. and P.S. Pithoria, District-Ranchi at
present residing at Devi Mandap Road, Near Sardar Decorators, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi ......... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Brajesh Verma, son of late Vijay Verma, resident of Ratu Road,
Alkapuri, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi
2. The Syndicate Bank (now stands merged with Canara Bank) through
the authorized officer, K.C. Roy Memorial School Branch, Kantatoli, P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Lalpur and District-Ranchi ....... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
06/Dated: 01/07/2025
Two cases have been tagged together however seeing the
nature of orders separate order is being passed in both the C.M.Ps.
C.M.P. No. 771 of 2024
2. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India for setting aside order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Sub-
Judge-II, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 710 of 2022 in O.S. No. 398/2013 whereby the
1
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with
section 151 C.P.C. for seeking amendment in the plaint, has been rejected by
the learned court.
4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that O.S. No. 398/2013 has been instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner
stating interalia that defendant/O.P. No.1 participated in an auction for a sale
of property consisting of land with building bearing R.S. Plot No. 938, Khata No.
61, measuring an area of 6 kathas situated at village Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar,
District-Ranchi, belonged to Smt. Prema Singh and it was being auctioned by
defendant/O.P. No.2 on account of default in payment of loan amount by the
borrower Chandrashekhar Singh i.e. husband of Smt. Prema Singh to be
successful bidder for a bid amount of Rs. 19,07,001/- and was required to
deposit 25% of the amount which the defendant/O.P. No.1 deposited Rs.
4,93,001/- being 25% of total bid amount and the rest amount of Rs.
14,14,000/- has to be deposited by 27.01.2011. He further submits that O.P.
No.1 herein has not been able to arrange 50% of the amount and that
amount has been borrowed by the O.P. No.1 from the petitioner/plaintiff and
thereafter auction sale was made in favour of the O.P. No.1 by the
defendant/O.P. No.2. He further submits that in this background an agreement
was entered into between the petitioner and O.P. No.1 to the effect that half of
the auction property will be transferred to the petitioner/plaintiff. However, O.P.
No.1 has not fulfilled the promise and in that situation the petitioner herein has
been compelled to file the said suit. He further submits that petition under
Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. has been filed for making certain amendment in the
prayer portion however the learned court has erroneously rejected the same.
He submits that there is no change in the nature of the suit inspite of that the
said petition has been rejected. He submits that prayer has been made for
deleting the prayer (A) and decree be passed directing the defendant nos. 1
and 2. He submits that the case is arising out of specific performance dispute in
2
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
view of that the said petition has been filed but the learned court has rejected
the same.
5. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 opposes the
prayer and submits prior to that one amendment was already allowed on the
prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner on 24.05.2019 which has been carried out by
the plaintiff/petitioner herein. He submits that in the amended petition in para
3 it has been stated that while preparation of the argument it transpires that
such relief is required to be added in the plaint and in view of that it was
afterthought and admission made in favour of other side tried to be
withdrawn. He submits that there is no agreement between the petitioner
/plaintiff and the bank and in view of that prayer is misconceived and the
learned court has rightly passed the order as the nature of suit will change.
6. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-Bank submits
that bank came for auction sale in the light of default made by the husband of
Smt. Prema Singh and in the light of Securitization Act Bank is required to act
within the said statute. He submits that there is no agreement between the
bank and the petitioner herein in view of that the learned court has rightly
passed the order.
7. From the agreement contained in Annexure-1 it transpires that
arrangement was there between the petitioner herein and the O.P. No.1 of
transfer of half of the share of the auction sale property and for that dispute
the suit was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff. In the said suit one
amendment was already allowed by the learned court which was carried out on
24.05.2019 at the instance of the petitioner. Subsequently, the present
amendment petition has been filed before the learned court. In the present
amendment petition complete deletion of Prayer (A) in the plaint has been
sought and further in the prayer B it has been sought to be added that if the
defendant nos. 1 and 2 fail to execute and register sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff then the sale deed be executed through the process of the court in
3
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
favour of the plaintiff and in course of argument it has been pointed out that
O.P. No.1 is said to be scheduled caste however that is denied by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. In a specific performance case if the
agreement is there between two parties then specific performance can be
maintained against the party who is defaulting the said agreement. In the case
in hand there is no agreement between the petitioner/plaintiff and O. P. No.2
who is bank and auction seller of the property in question.
8. In this background it transpires that by way of said amendment
the admission made has been tried to be drawn. There is no doubt that Courts
are very liberal in allowing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to avoid
the multiplicity of litigation for deciding lis. The amendment can be allowed at
any stage that is well settled principle. In the case of "Life Insurance
Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builder reported in 2022 SCC Online
(SC) 1128 wherein para 71.1 to 71.11 it has been held as under:-
" 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC 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 II Rule 2 CPC is, thus,
misconceived and hence negatived.
(ii) 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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the
controversy between the parties, and
(ii) 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 does 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).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless
(i) 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,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
(v) 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.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly
4
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory
decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify
the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) 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.
(x) 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.
(xi) 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 &
Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897."
9. So far the case in hand is concerned, what has been discussed
hereinabove the guidelines made therein in the case of L.I.C. (supra) is not
helping the petitioner herein and the learned court has rightly held that if the
said amendment is allowed the same will change the nature of the suit.
10. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly,
C.M.P. No. 770 of 2024 is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.
C.M.P. No. 770 of 2024
11. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for setting aside order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Sub-
Judge-II, Ranchi in O.S. No. 398/2013 whereby the application filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff to produce sale certificate/sale deed and also related
statements of defendant/respondent no.2, has been rejected by the learned
court.
12. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that O.S. No. 398/2013 has been instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner
5
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
stating interalia that defendant/O.P. No.1 participated in an auction for a sale
of property consisting of land with building bearing R.S. Plot No. 938, Khata No.
61, measuring an area of 6 kathas situated at village Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar,
District-Ranchi, belonged to Smt. Prema Singh and it was being auctioned by
defendant/O.P. No.2 on account of default in payment of loan amount by the
borrower Chandrashekhar Singh i.e. husband of Smt. Prema Singh to be
successful bidder for a bid amount of Rs. 19,07,001/- and was required to
deposit 25% of the amount which the defendant/O.P. No.1 deposited Rs.
4,93,001/- being 25% of total bid amount and the rest amount of Rs.
14,14,000/- has to be deposited by 27.01.2011. He further submits that O.P.
No.1 herein has not been able to arrange 50% of the amount and that
amount has been borrowed by the O.P. No.1 from the petitioner/plaintiff and
thereafter auction sale was made in favour of the O.P. No.1 by the
defendant/O.P. No.2. He further submits that in this background an agreement
was entered into between the petitioner and O.P. No.1 to the effect that half of
the auction property will be transferred to the petitioner/plaintiff. However, O.P.
No.1 has not fulfilled the promise and in that situation the petitioner herein has
been compelled to file the said suit. He further submits that in that suit a
petition under Order XI Rule 12 was filed for producing the sale certificate and
sale deed which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that the
said document is having relevancy in view of the fact that 50% of the auction
sale amount has been paid by the petitioner in the light of agreement and in
view of that prayer was made and the learned court has erroneously rejected
the said petition. He submits that relevancy of the said document can be
decided by the learned court in course of trial and considering the evidence
brought on record by either of the parties. He further submits that in view of
that the said order may kindly be set aside.
13. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 opposes the
prayer and submits that rejoinder to said petition was filed before the learned
6
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
court wherein para 3 clear stand has been taken that on 31.08.2015 the
plaintiff has given a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the C.P.C. through his
advocate and demanded original copy of interim certificate dated 11.01.2011
and the defendant has also replied the same on 05.10.2015 in which he has
clearly stated that same was misplaced. He further submits that a clever
attempt has been made by the plaintiff/petitioner herein to debar the
defendant of his defence as in the light of Order XI Rule 21 C.P.C. He further
submits that in view of Rule XXI on the direction of the learned court the said
is not produced that will be treated against the defendant. He further submits
that the plaintiff in his own deposition has already admitted in para 10 of the
deposition that the demand was made and thereafter reply was made to the
effect that has already been mis-placed. He submits that in the said paragraph
it has also been admitted by the plaintiff/petitioner that xerox copy of interim
certificate has already been filed. He submits that in view of that secondary
evidence is already there in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.
14. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-Bank submits
that under the Securitization Act there is no mandate to register the sale deed
and only sale certificate is being issued.
15. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it is clear from the document on record that O.P. No.1 has replied to
the notice of the petitioner/plaintiff that interim certificate has been mis-placed
and that fact has also been admitted in the evidence of plaintiff himself and
further photocopy of said has been brought on record. The learned court has
found that in such circumstances, the court cannot pass the order however,
the liberty was provided to the petitioner herein by the learned court to
produce the same on his own. The courts are very lenient in allowing to
produce the relevant document on record to decide the lis however in the
given circumstances as discussed hereinabove and further considering order
Order XI Rule 21 the Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel for
7
( 2025:JHHC:17254 )
the O.P. No.1.
16. As such no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, C.M.P.
No. 770 of 2024 is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/A.F.R.
8