Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashutosh Gupta vs President on 18 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8474
1 M.P. No.749/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.749 of 2025
ASHUTOSH GUPTA
Versus
PRESIDENT, SARASWATI BAL SEVA SAMITI AND ANOTHER
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Suryansh Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the order dated 21/01/2025 passed by First
Civil Judge Junior Division Anuppur, District Anuppur in RCSA
No.94/2020, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent
No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, has
been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent No.1
preferred a civil suit being RCSA No.94/2020 on 28.09.2020 seeking
declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the disputed
property i.e. Khasra No.293/4 admeasuring 6.00 acres. In the original
plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the petitioner/defendant has
usurped the aforementioned disputed property and had begun
construction work thereon. Subsequently, on 05.11.2024, after lapse of
more than four years, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
seeking amendment in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent
No.1 pleading that during the course of trial, subsequent developments
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8474
had occurred i.e., the completion of the construction work, which
necessitated the amendment in the plaint. Though the said amendment
application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant, but the Trial Court
had allowed the application vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025.
3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
Trial Court erred in law by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule
17 CPC filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No.1. Trial Court has failed to
consider the fact that the trial has already been commenced and issues
are framed and also the fact that the civil suit is at the stage of recording
of evidence. It is further argued that the application has been filed after
lapse of more than 4 years and delay in filing of amendment application
was not justified as there is no substantial ground for the case proposed
to be set up by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff/ defendant No.1
was aware about the subsequent development at the early stage of the
trial but waited for so long just to delay the proceedings. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relying upon the recent judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation
of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported
in (2022) 16 SCC 1, has argued that certain guidelines have been
framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the application
for amendment and has prayed for quashment of impugned order dated
21/01/2025.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of documents available on record, it is clear that
the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by
the plaintiff on the ground that defendant No.1 has raised a big
construction on the disputed land during the pendency of the civil suit.
The application has been allowed by the trial Court by observing that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8474
the said amendment is required for just and proper disposal of lis. The
trial Court found the amendment to be just and proper for settling the
entire controversy between the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited (supra) has taken note of earlier judgments
passed by the Supreme Court with respect to amendment and has
observed in the conclusion as under:-
"71.2. 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 6 Rule 17CPC.
* * *
71.3.2. 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 do 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).
* * *
71.5. 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.
* * *
71.7. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8474
* * *
71.11. 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, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
1897.)"
7. If the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court are
applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that
trial Court has not committed any error in allowing such application. To
avoid multiplicity of proceedings, said amendment is required to be
allowed. The entire controversy between the parties could be put to rest
by way of one civil suit only. No prejudice is being caused to the
petitioner/defendant No.1 by allowing such an application.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others reported in (2006) 4
SCC 385 has taken note of the fact that Court should allow all the
amendments that may be necessary for determining the real issue in
controversy between the parties. The Court should not go into the
correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment, nor record a finding
on the merits of amendment at the stage of considering the prayer for
amendment. The same can be considered at a later stage during trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8474
9. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court is
just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present
petition.
10. Even otherwise, this is a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India having a limited scope of interference as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty
Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein
certain guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court, which are as
under:-
"The scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be
passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it
suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or
perversity, interference can be made. Interference
is made to ensure that Courts below act within the
bounds of their authority. Another view is
possible, is not a ground for interference.
Interference can be made sparingly for the said
purpose and not for correcting error of facts and
law in a routine manner."
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is called for in a well reasoned order passed by the Trial
Court. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
12. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
