Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roshanlal Garg vs Rajesh Jain on 4 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13779
1 MP-3496-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3496 of 2024
ROSHANLAL GARG AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJESH JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"i) Impugned order dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) may kindly
be set aside to the extent of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of
CPC.
ii) Costs may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the
plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction on the ground under Section
12(1)(a), 12(1)(k) and 12(1)(m) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During the course of trial, an
application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the
plaintiff as per Annexure P/5 and grounds under Section 12(1)(C) of the Act
also have been raised which was allowed by trial Court vide impugned order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13779
2 MP-3496-2024
dated 29.05.2024. Since in earlier suit Case No.151/78A pending before
Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Sheopur, the title of Keshar bai has been
denied by the defendant in paragraph No.1, therefore, the plea which sought
to be incorporated in plaint by way of amendment is time barred and such
time barred amendment cannot be allowed to be incorporated in plaint.
Hence, he prays for setting aside of impugned order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that
by submitting the written statement defendant has denied the title of the
plaintiff over the suit property, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to file
this amendment application to incorporate the grounds under Section 12(1)
(C) of the Act and related other amendment which are necessary for the
decision of controversy exists in this case. It is also submitted that since the
defendant has denied the title of plaintiff, therefore, in the changed
circumstances, this amendment has been requested for being incorporated in
the plaint. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dinesh
Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Ors reported in AIR online
2024 SC 634. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has also submitted
that the trial has not been started yet and such amendment is necessary for
just decision of the case and there is ample opportunity to the defendants to
counter it and to adduce evidence in rebuttal of it. Therefore, it cannot be
said that any prejudice shall be caused by such amendment, therefore, the
impugned order does not call for interference.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Paragraphs 11.2, 13 and 14 of the case of Dinesh Goyal (supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13779
3 MP-3496-2024
have been cited by learned counsel which is as under:
"11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents
certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI
Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., after considering
numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings,
culled out certain principles:-
(i) 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 17 of the CPC.
(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be
ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice
to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same
should be disallowed if -
(a) 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.
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting
in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in
certain situations)
(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid
defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are -
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach;
ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13779
4 MP-3496-2024
compensated by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended
to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or
introduce an additional or a new approach.
(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so
as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the
plaint."
12. The question that we have to consider, in the above
backdrop is whether the High Court fell in error in allowing the
application seeking leave to amend pleadings, in contravention of
the statutory language.
13. By way of the amendment, what is sought to be done is, to
question the validity of the Will, on the basis of which, the
defendant sought to have the suit dismissed, while also expanding
the scope of adjudication of the suit to include movable property.
It has to be then, demonstrated that - (a) determination of the
genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in
determining the issues inter se the parties; and (b) given the
finding of the court below that the application was presented post
the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due
diligence, presented prior to such commencement.
6. Having considered the law laid down in the aforesaid case and
keeping in view the fact that the trial was not yet commenced and that the
defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff, the application for the proposed
amendment has rightly been allowed by the learned Trial Court. It cannot be
said in these circumstances, that the proposed amendment is time barred, as
each time the defendant denies the title of the claimant, a separate cause of
action arises in favour of the plaintiff. Since the title of the present plaintiff
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13779
5 MP-3496-2024
has been denied for the first time by the defendant, therefore, the proposed
amendment cannot be held to be time-barred."
7. Resultantly, this petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Monika
