[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banke Bihari vs Leelakrishna Mishra on 9 December, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32000
1 MP-7054-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 7054 of 2025
BANKE BIHARI AND OTHERS
Versus
LEELAKRISHNA MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioners- defendants.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has
been filed by petitioners/defendants challenging order dated 20.11.2025 passed by
Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Suit
No.27-A/2023, whereby I.A. No. 09/2025 preferred by defendants under Order
XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of Issue No. 2 has
been rejected.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of present petition are that
respondent/plaintiff instituted civil suit for partition and permanent injunction in
respect of land/plot bearing Survey No. 416/5, ad-measuring 1750 sq. ft., situated
at Village Kutdhan, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. Plaintiff pleaded that suit
property was purchased by his father, late Bhawani Shankar Mishra, and after his
demise, he is entitled to one-fifth share therein.
3. Petitioners/defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments
and asserted that written family partition of suit property had already been effected
on 31.03.2021 in presence of family members and witnesses, thereby rendering
suit for partition not maintainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32000
2 MP-7054-2025
4. On basis of pleadings, Trial Court framed several issues, including Issue
No. 2, which reads as follows:-
"Whether a family partition of disputed land/plot has taken place between
defendants No. 1 to 4 and plaintiff?"
5. Thereafter, petitioners filed application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC
seeking amendment of Issue No. 2 so as to specify that father of plaintiff and
defendants No. 1 and 2 and Krishna and husband of Ganeshbai, late Bhawani
Shankar, had executed written family partition on 31.03.2021 of portion of land
ad-measuring 1750 sq. ft. out of Survey No. 416/5, owned and possessed by him
during his lifetime.
6. Respondent/plaintiff submitted reply opposing said application. Upon
hearing both sides, Trial Court, by impugned order dated 20.11.2025, rejected
application. Hence, present petition has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that impugned order is
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles governing exercise of power under
Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. It was argued that Court is empowered to amend or frame
additional issues at any stage prior to pronouncement of judgment, and proposed
issue is central to defence of petitioners, based on written family partition dated
31.03.2021. It was further contended that Trial Court prejudged matter by
observing that even if father is proved to have partitioned property, it would still
amount to partition between plaintiff and defendants. Such observation, according
to petitioners, is legally flawed. Proposed amendment is not afterthought but
clarification of plea already taken in written statement, and precise framing of
issues is essential for fair adjudication. Learned counsel also submitted that no
prejudice would be caused to plaintiff, as defendants have not yet led evidence,
and plaintiff may be given opportunity to lead additional evidence if necessary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32000
3 MP-7054-2025
Impugned order was also characterized as cryptic and suffering from non-
application of mind. Reliance was placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in the
matter of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8
SCC 249.
8. Having considered submissions made on behalf of petitioners and perused
impugned order, plaint, written statement, and documents on record, Court finds
that substance of proposed amendment to Issue No. 2 is already covered within
issue as originally framed by Trial Court. Existing Issue No. 2 sufficiently
encompasses controversy regarding alleged family partition of suit property.
9. Elaboration sought by petitioners regarding author of alleged partition
does not introduce any distinct or additional matter requiring framing or
amendment of issue. Trial Court has committed no illegality or material
irregularity in rejecting application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.
10. Judgment relied upon by petitioners is distinguishable and does not
assist them in facts and circumstances of present case.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, no ground is made out to warrant
interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
