WASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING YARD BRANCH, GARHWA THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:26193)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 607 of 2026
1. Wasim Akhtar, son of Mustafa Kamal, aged about 35 years,
2. Arshad Jamal, son of Mustafa Kamal, aged about 29 years
3. Nasim Ahmad, son of Mustafa Kamal, aged about 35 years
All residents of Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa,
P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Bank of India, Agricultural Marketing Yard Branch,
Garhwa through its Branch Manager, at P.O. & P.S.-Uchari,
Dist.-Garhwa
2. Md. Murtaza Ali Ansari, son of late Dr. Ali Raza Ansari,
resident of Madarsa Road, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa,
Jharkhand-822114
3. Md. Shamim Ansari, son of late Abdul Rahim Ansari, resident
of Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
4. Jubaida Bibi, wife of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
5. Anish Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
6. Rayees Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
7. Khurshid Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
8. Rashid Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
9. Sayeed Hasan, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
10. Wahid Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
1
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
11. Hamid Ansari, son of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari, resident of
Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
12. Sabana Khatoon daughter of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari,
resident of Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa,
P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
13. Afsana Khatoon, daughter of Hazi Amir Hasan Ansari,
resident of Village- Sonpurwa Mohallah, Garhwa,
P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822114
14. Md. Husnain, son of Mustafa Kamal, resident of Sonpurwa
Mohallah, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand-
822114
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioners : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.S.A.S. Swaroop Pati, Advocate
: Mr. Divyansh Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
: Ms. Vaishanavi Kaushik, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
I.A. No.12295 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the
prayer for delete the name of the opposite pasty no.3-
Hazi Amir Hassan Ansari as he died on 05.01.2024 before
filing of this civil miscellaneous petition. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the legal heirs of the opposite party no.3 are already on
record being the opposite party nos. 4 to 14.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is
allowed.
2
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
4. Registry is directed to delete the name and
particulars of the opposite party no.3 and renumber the
opposite party nos.4 to 15 as opposite party nos.3 to 14
with red ink in the cause title of this civil miscellaneous
petition.
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
C.M.P. No. 607 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the
order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Garhwa in Succession Certificate Case No.
01 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned
Principal District Judge, Garhwa has rejected the petition
dated 27.04.2026 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
seeking amendment of the written statement
incorporating the new plea of oral Hibba (gift) allegedly
made by the deceased Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi on
15.10.2016 in favour of the opposite parties of the said
Succession Certificate Case No. 01 of 2022.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners herein
are the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of the said Succession
3
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
Certificate Case No. 01 of 2022 of the Court of Principal
District Judge, Garhwa. The application for grant of
succession certificate was filed on 03.03.2022. The opposite
party nos.2 to 5 appeared in the said case and filed written
statement on 14.12.2023. In their written statement, the
opposite party nos.2 to 5 claimed ownership of the
property in question; in respect of which succession
certificate was sought to be granted to the petitioners,
being legal heirs of Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi.
Consequent upon filing of the said written statement, the
evidence of the petitioners was recorded and the evidence
of the petitioners were closed. The opposite parties also
led some evidence and at such a belated stage, the
petitioners herein who are the opposite party nos.2 to 5,
came up with a new plea of introducing the claim of oral
Hibba (gift) allegedly made by Nazma Khatun @ Nagina
Bibi on 15.10.2016 and claiming the ownership of the
property in respect of which succession certificate is
sought to be issued by the petitioners; as a donee and not
as a successor of Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi; as was
their case in the written statement filed in the case.
4. The learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa
considered the settled principle of law that since the
amendment sought by the petitioners is designed to
withdraw the admission of the petitioners regarding non-
4
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
existence of any Hibba (gift) such a new plea will take the
opposite parties herein by surprise at this belated stage
and rejected the same.
5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation
of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.
2022(4) JLJR (SC)178
reported in , it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the final
conclusion in respect of amendment of pleadings has been
summed up in paragraph nos. 70 (ii) to (xi) and submits
that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has inter
alia held that all amendments which are necessary for
determining the real question in controversy be allowed of
course, if it does not cause injustice or prejudice the other
side. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that since it is the case of the petitioners that
they are entitled to a property in question of which
succession certificate is sought by the petitioners, as a
donee, so the amendment sought is necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the
parties therefore, it is submitted that the learned Principal
District Judge, Garhwa has committed a grave illegality by
rejecting the petition for amendment. Hence, it is
submitted that prayer as made in this civil miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
5
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other
hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that
since the proposed amendment intends to drastically alter
the nature of the defence of the petitioners herein that too
at the belated stage when the evidence of the petitioners of
Succession Certificate Case No. 01 of 2022 who are
opposite parties in this civil miscellaneous is already over;
therefore, it is submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Garhwa in rejecting the prayer for amendment of the
written statement; as such amendment at the belated stage
will cause injustice and prejudice to the petitioners-
opposite parties herein. Hence, it is submitted that this
civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and
after going through the materials available in the record, it
is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of
law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Pradeep Singhvi & Another. Vs.
Heero Dhankani & Others. reported in (2004) 13 SCC
432 , that where the proposed amendment has the effect of
drastically altering the nature of the defence, the same
ought not to be allowed.
6
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed
fact remains that the petitioners herein who are opposite
party nos.2 to 5 of Succession Certificate Case No. 01 of
2022 filed their written statement on 14.12.2023 specifically
claiming that they have inherited the property of Nazma
Khatun @ Nagina Bibi by way of succession. They did not
whisper a word about existence of any Hibba (gift) given
by Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi. The undisputed fact
also remains that at the belated stage after the entire
evidence of the petitioners and part of the evidence of
opposite parties was recorded in the said Succession
Certificate Case No. 01 of 2022, the petitioners herein came
up with a proposed drastic amendment thereby changing
the basis of the claim from one of succession to one as
donee and such petition was filed on 27.04.2026 only.
True, it is a settled principle of law that all amendment
that are to be allowed which are necessary for determining
the real question in controversy but the same comes with a
rider and the rider is that such amendment is to be
allowed only if it does not cause injustice or prejudice to
the other side. In this case the proposed amendment to the
written statement, as already indicated above, no doubt
changes the nature of the claim of the petitioners herein, in
respect of the property, in respect of which succession
certificate is sought by the petitioners of the case; more so
7
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26193)
at the belated stage, when the evidence of the petitioners
is already over and even the part of the evidence of
opposite parties has already been recorded.
9. Thus, in view of the settled principle of law as
discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this
Judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the
learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa has not
committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the
prayer of the petitioners at the belated stage to drastically
alter the nature of the defence from one of succession to
one as donee; warranting interference of this Court in
exercise of limited power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition being
without any merit is dismissed.
11. In view of the dismissal of this civil miscellaneous
petition, interlocutory applications, if any, is disposed of
being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
st
Dated the 31 August, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 01/09/2026
8
C.M.P. No.607 of 2026