Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnath Patel vs Aam Janta on 31 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
1 MP-5357-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5357 of 2023
RAMNATH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
AAM JANTA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rupesh Singh Thakur - Advocate with Shri Deshhit Soubhri and
Shri Kaustubh Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shir Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 5.8.2023 passed in RCSA No.122/2017 by
2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Sirmour, District Rewa, whereby an application
filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by respondents / plaintiffs for
amendment in the plaint has been allowed, the present petition has been
filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents / plaintiffs have
filed a suit for declaration that the land in suit as shown in the plaint map of
which Annexure-P/1 be declared to be the land of the State Government and
the order of mutation etc. done in favour of the defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 be
set-aside and the petitioners / defendants be restrained from using the land in
suit in any manner whatsoever. The defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 submitted
their written statement, by which, it has been contended that it is an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
2 MP-5357-2023
individual land of the present defendants and the defendants are having the
title over the land in dispute and prayed that the suit presented by the
plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. The suit was filed in the year 2017 and the
defendants / petitioners herein have also filed their written statement. On
1.7.2023 the respondents / plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint before the Trial
Court which has been allowed by the Trial Court, against which, the present
petition has been filed by the petitioners / defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants has submitted that
learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17
of CPC by the order under challenge without there being any explanation for
the delay or explaining due diligence for filing the said application before the
Trial Court. It is also submitted that the learned Court below has not
considered the aspect that the contents made in the application for
amendment of plaint was not at all relevant with the present case even then
the Trial court has allowed that application. Further contended that it is just
the hindrances being created by the plaintiffs over the right of the defendants
the factious suit has been filed, therefore, an application for amendment has
been filed that too has been allowed by the Trial Court without assigning any
reason.
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondents / plaintiff has
vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioners
and argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended that learned
Trial Court was well justified in passing the impugned order. Learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
3 MP-5357-2023
Court has considered the fact that the amendment sought in no way is
changing the nature of the civil suit rather the amendment sought will help
the Trial Court to decide the real points of controversy between the parties.
To buttress his contention, counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @
Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. and has prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The trial Court while allowing the application filed under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC has observed that the civil suit is at the initial stage and the
issues have not been framed till date. Merely adding certain other survey
numbers in the relief clause will not change the nature of the suit.
7 . The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of
India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 729 has considered the factum of amendment in the pleadings
and has framed certain guidelines in para 70 in its judgment which are as
under :-
70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
( i ) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for
application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.
The plea of amendment being barred under Order II
Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
(ii) 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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed.
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
4 MP-5357-2023
adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
(ii) 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
does 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).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be
allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to
be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim
would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for
consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical
approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal
especially where the opposite party can be compensated
by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to
pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in
rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in
the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be
allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately
for decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit
or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new
case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in
the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
5 MP-5357-2023
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 & Ors. , 2022
SCC OnLine Del 1897)
8. If guidelines no. 2 and 11 are seen it is crystal clear that the
amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings and it is discretion
of the Trial Court to find out that whether amendment sought will be helpful
in deciding the real question in controversy between the parties or not?
9. If the aforesaid guidelines are applied in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, then it is seen that the amendment can always be
allowed to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. Only in the exceptional
circumstances when the amendment changes the nature of the suit, the
amendment cannot be allowed. However, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case it is found that the amendment as sought by the
plaintiffs does not change the nature of the suit. It is only an addition of
certain survey numbers by the plaintiffs, for which, the defendants are having
every right to counter the same. The trial Court has not committed any
illegality allowing the application by the impugned order.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Court is required to be
liberal in its approach and the Court should avoid a hyper technical
approach. Further, counsel for the petitioner could not point out that if the
amendment is allowed, it will cause prejudice to them. There is nothing on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5244
6 MP-5357-2023
record to show that the amendment as sought by the plaintiffs / respondents
will change the nature of the subject matter.
11. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Hon'ble
Supreme court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs
Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that the High
Court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct
mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by
the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court
can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders
of tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been
flouted. The learned trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, has
taken a plausible view which does not require any interference.
12. Under these circumstances, looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the settled principle of law, no case is
made out warranting interference in the impugned order and no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
13. The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
