Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Leela vs Sheetal Prasad Batham on 29 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9419
1 MP-5631-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5631 of 2023
SMT. LEELA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHEETAL PRASAD BATHAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava- advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition challenging the order
dated 21.08.2023, passed by 3rd Civil Judge Junior Division Dabra, District
Gwalior in RCSA No. 92 of 2016 whereby, learned Trial Court has rejected
the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground of delay.
[2]. Learned Trial Court has observed in its order that earlier also the
plaintiffs have amended the plaint on 05.07.2023 and defendants have made
consequential amendment in the written statement on 02.08.2023. Thus,
holding that the plaintiffs could have made the proposed amendment earlier,
the present application has been rejected.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, particularly para-2, submits that they acquired the
knowledge about the proposed amendment from the consequential
amendment made by the defendants. He thus submits that proposed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9419
2 MP-5631-2023
amendments being necessary should have been allowed by the learned Trial
Court. He further submits that the evidence in the Civil Suit has not
commenced so far and, therefore, by allowing the application, no prejudice
will be caused to the defendants.
[4]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submits that the plaintiffs had due knowledge about
the facts now sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the plaint
and, therefore, there is no due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs.
[5]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[ 6 ] . In the earlier application for amendment, the plaintiffs have
inserted para 6-अ & 6-ब wherein, they incorporated the amendment with
regard to two civil suits between the parties to this suit and relating to the
same suit property. After this amendment was allowed, the defendants made
consequential amendment in the written statement wherein, it is stated that in
one of the civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 72-A of 2018, there has been a
compromise between the parties. It is this assertion made by the defendants,
the proposed amendment is made by the petitioners.
[7]. From the submission made in the amendment application, it is
gathered that the plaintiffs could know about the compromise in the civil suit
from the consequential amendment made by the defendants. There is no
material available on record to show that they earlier had the knowledge of
this fact. Further the plaintiffs' evidence has still not commenced in the suit
and, therefore, no prejudice will be caused, if the amendment is allowed.
[8]. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9419
3 MP-5631-2023
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Nirmala Singh & Ors. Vs.
Mahendra Pratap Sharma & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 93. The facts of
the said case are different inasmuch as no due diligence was pleaded by the
concerned party in that case. However, in the present case, in para-2 of the
application, there is specific averments made by the petitioners that they
gathered knowledge from the consequential amendment made by the
defendants.
[9]. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256 , the Apex Court
held that 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.
[10]. Thus, applying the aforesaid law in the facts of the present case,
it is found that proposed amendment is necessary for decision of the case and
no prejudice will be caused to defendants, if the amendment is allowed.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.08.2023, passed by 3 rd Civil Judge
Junior Division Dabra, District Gwalior in RCSA No. 92 of 2016 so far as it
relates to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the petitioner is set
aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the petitioner is
allowed. The trial Court to proceed further accordingly.
[11]. The respondents are at liberty to make consequential amendment,
if required.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9419
4 MP-5631-2023
vpn/-
