Allahabad High Court

Raja And Another vs Sunil Kumar on 23 September, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
Reserved On: 19.09.2025
 
Delivered On:  23.09.2025
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
Matters Under Article 227 No. -  11084 of 2023
 

 
Raja and another
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Sunil Kumar
 

 
Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Kaushal Kant Dubey, Mata Achal Mishra
 

 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Raj Kumar Dhama
 

 

 
Court No.  9
 

 
HONBLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghpat allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff/respondent. Revision against the said order has been rejected by the court below by order dated 18.08.2023.

3. Brief facts of the case are as noted in the order passed by the revisional court, original suit No. 210 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/petitioner for the relief that a decree be passed canceling the will dated 27.02.2013 executed by one Mahendra Singh (Father of the plaintiff/respondent) in favour of the defendant/petitioner. After being noticed, the defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the plaint averment. Issues was framed by the trial court on 14.05.2017. After deciding the issue nos. 2 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff, 17.08.2017 was the date fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed affidavits of PW-1 & PW-2. Thereafter, an application was moved by the defendant on 24.11.2017 to file documentary evidence and by order dated 06.07.2018, the said application was allowed and the case was again directed to be listed for evidence. On 15.01.2019, the defendant/petitioner filed documentary evidence by means of paper No. 55Ga and also moved an application (paper No. 53Ga) for comparing the signatures and handwriting on which objection was invited from the plaintiff. The said application was allowed by order dated 19.05.2019. Again on 19.11.2019, the defendant filed an application for amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which was allowed by the trial court. The defendant/respondent did not conclude the cross-examination of PW-1 and again on 07.01.2020 the defendant/petitioner moved an application for amendment in the written statement. As earlier, application filed by the defendant/petitioner was allowed, the plaintiff/respondent was permitted to file replication to the amended written statement and at this stage, the plaintiff has filed present amendment application (paper No. 72Ka) which has been allowed by the trial court by the order impugned. The revision filed by the petitioner has also rejected by the revisional court.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment application was filed at a belated stage after commencement of the hearing of the proceeding and in view of the Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C., such amendment cannot be allowed at the stage of evidence of the parties and the court below has erroneously allowed the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that amendment sought in the plaint was clarificatory in nature and no new fact has been introduced and such amendment was necessary for decision of the case and therefore, can be allowed even after commencement of the proceedings. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the said amendment, the defendant is not prejudiced in any manner as no new fact has been introduced in the plaint

6. With the help of learned counsel for the parties I have perused the plaint as well as the amendment application. Relevant portion of plaint i.e. paragraph no. 8 of the plaint and proposed amendment in plaint are quoted as under:

"8. यह कि महेन्द्र सिंह द्वारा छोड़ी गयी कृषि भूमि खसरा संख्या 7 मि. पर वादी व वादी की माता के भाग पर वादी पूर्व से ही काबिज चला आता है तथा खसरा संख्या 49 मि. मे भी वादी अपने व अपनी माता श्रीमती चमेली के भाग पर महेन्द्र सिंह के सामने से ही काबिज व दाखिल चला आता है तथा मकान व घर में भी वादी अपनी माता व पत्नी सहित 1/2 भाग पर काबिज व दाखिल चला आता है तथा अपने 1/2 भाग में से ही वादी ने एक कमरा व कुछ सहन विनोद पुत्र बाबू निवासी अग्रवाल मण्डी टटीरी को किराये पर दे रहा है। प्रतिवादीगण राजा व रमनीतह पुत्रगण सुरेशपाल सिंह का कोई कब्जा वादी के भाग की भूमि पर नही हुआ है। लेकिन नोटिस द्वारा प्रतिवादीगण राजा व रमनसिंह ने वादी को महेन्द्र सिह की समस्त सम्पत्ति से अलग होने की धमकी दी है।"

Proposed Amendment

1. यहकि वादपत्र की धारा 8 में लिखी समस्त तहरीर को काटा जाकर उसके स्थान पर निम्न तहरीर लिखी जावे।

"यहकि प्रार्थी/वादी के पिता महेन्द्रसिंह के नाम राजस्व अभिलेखो में अंकित कृषि भूमि खसरा नम्बर 7 मि० क्षेत्रफल 0.8620 हेक्टेयर व खसरा नम्बर 491 मि० क्षेत्रफल 0.2500 हेक्टेयर कुल खसरा नम्बरान दो कुल क्षेत्रफल 1.1120 हेक्टेयर लगानी अंकन 52.85 रूपये वार्षिक स्थित ग्राम टटीरी तहसील व जिला बागपत एक मकान जिसके पूरब में मकान श्रीमति सुन्दर पत्नी अमरसिंह पश्चिम में रास्ता आम उत्तर में पलाट कृष्णा तथा दक्षिण में गली एवं एक घेर जिसके पूरब में मकान सतपाल, पश्चिम में रास्ता आम, उत्तर में घेर भंवर मुखिया दक्षिण में मकान नरेन्द्र पुत्र सुखवीर है स्थित अगव्राल मण्डी टटीरी तहसील व जिला बागपत वादी के पिता की पैत्रिक दादइलाही सम्पत्ति थी, जो वादी के पिता महेन्द्र सिंह को अपने पूर्वजों से बतौर विरासत प्राप्त हुई थी उक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति आबादी एवं कृषि भूमि में वादी का जन्म से ही 1/3 भाग रहा है तथा वादी उक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति आबादी व कृषि भूमि में अपने पिता के साथ सहस्वामी व सहकाबिज चला आता था तथा वादी के पिता की मृत्यु के पश्चात से वादी उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति आबादी एवं कृषि भूमि में 1/2 भाग का मालिक व काबिज चला आता है तथा वादी ने अपने भाग के मकानात में एक कमरा व कुछ सहन दिनेश पुत्र बाबू निवासी अग्रवाल मण्डी टटीरी तहसील व जिला बागपत को किराये पर दे रखा है तथा वादी के 1/2 भाग की सम्पत्ति के स्वामित्व एवं आधिपत्य से प्रतिवादीगण अथवा उनके पिता सुरेशपाल का सम्बन्ध वास्ता किसी भी प्रकार का नही है और न कभी रहा है।

2. यह कि वादपत्र की धारा 8 के पश्चात धारा "8अ" निम्न प्रकार तहरीर की जावे।

8अ-यहकि उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति आबादी एवं कृषि भूमि वादी की पैत्रिक / दादइलाही सम्पत्ति है जिसमे वादी का जन्म से 1/3 भाग रहा है तथा वादी के पिता की मृत्यु के पश्चात से वादी का 1/2 भाग है तथा वादी अपने 1/2 भाग का मालिक व काबिज चला आता है वादी का पिता उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति आबादी एवं कृषि भूमि का तन्हा मालिक व काबिज नही था तथा उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति पैत्रिक सम्पत्ति होने के कारण वादी के पिता को उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्पत्ति की वसीयत प्रतिवादीगण के पक्ष में सम्पादित एवं पंजीकृत कराने का कोई कानूनी अधिकार प्राप्त नही था और न ही वादी के पिता के पिता ने स्वेच्छा से अपनी जानकारी में विवादित वसीयत सम्पादित कर पंजीकृत करायी है विवादित वसीयत बिना किसी कानूनी अधिकार के सम्पादित व पंजीकृत होने के कारण भी शून्य व निष्प्रभावी है जिसका कानून की दृष्टि में कोई महत्व नही है।"

7. From the perusal of the plaint and proposed amendment, it is apparent that in the original plaint, plaintiff has claimed 1/2 share in the property in dispute which according to the petitioner was ancestral property of which a will was executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. By the amendment, the petitioner has sought clarification to the extent that initially the share of the plaintiff was 1/3 being ancestral property but after the death of his father, the petitioner has 1/2 share in the property.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ram Asare v. Gyan Babu and others; 2006 (42) RCR (Civil) 885. In case of Ram Asare (Supra), this Court after relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K. K. Modi, 2006 (2) AWC 1886 held that all the amendments that are necessary for determining of the real question of controversies should be allowed. Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. cannot place any impediment in allowing the amendment application, if it was otherwise liable to be allowed. The amendment cannot be refused only on the ground that the amendment application was filed after commencement of trial. Paragraph no. 7, 8 & 9 of the case of Ram Asare (Supra) is quoted as under:

7. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K. K. Modi and Ors., 2006 (2) AWC 1886 the Supreme Court in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 held:

16. This rule declares that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. It also states that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso enacts that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter for which amendment is sought before the commencement of the trial.

17. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

18. Order VI Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit.

19. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that all the amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties should be allowed. Further the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. cannot place any impediment in allowing the amendment application if it was otherwise liable to be allowed. The amendment cannot be refused only on the ground that the amendment application was filed after the commencement of the trial.

9. In the opinion of the Court, the amendment sought was necessary for determining the real controversy involved between the parties. The amendment application can to be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, even after the commencement of the trial if the amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

9. In my view, the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and no prejudice is caused to the defendant/petitioner as the case since beginning of the plaintiff was that in the property plaintiff have 1/2 share and the will was never executed by father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant/petitioner.