Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brihamdutta Alias Banti Vyas vs Chanchal on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
1 MP-857-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 10th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 857 of 2024
BRIHAMDUTTA ALIAS BANTI VYAS AND OTHERS
Versus
CHANCHAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
"It is humbly prayed that petition may kindly be allowed by setting
aside the Annexure P-1, further application under order 6 Rule 17
C.P.C. and order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. may kindly be allowed. Any
other relief may kindly be granted in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the applications under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. It is also submitted that the
mutation application which has earlier been allowed in favour of the
plaintiffs/petitioners by the order Chief Municipal Officer, Municipality,
Gohad. That order has been challenged before the Collector, Gohad. Since
this development has been taken after the starting of trial, therefore the
application was not belated, but trial Court only on the ground of delay has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
2 MP-857-2024
dismissed the applications, while the proposed amendment is relevant for the
just decision of this case. Keeping in view the relevancy and considering the
cause of delay, the applications ought to be allowed.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
prayer on the ground that the proposed amendment as well as the documents
are not relevant and not required for a just decision of the case. Moreover,
the order of Collector was passed on 28.11.2022, while the application
Annexure P/4 under Order 6 Rule 17 has been filed not before 31.01.2024.
No cause for such delay has been mentioned in the applications; therefore,
the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the applications are filed with
inordinate delay and, therefore, rightly rejected the applications.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. A perusal of the record shows that the order of Collector, Bhind in
Case No.005/C-144/2022-23 was passed on 28.01.2022, while the
applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC
have been filed on 31.01.2024. But, no explanation as regards the delay has
been assigned in the applications; these applications have been filed at the
stage of plaintiff's evidence, that is after the initiation of trial. The provisions
of Order 6 and 17 of CPC is as follows:-
"17. Amendment pleadings - The Court may at any stage
of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend
his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may
be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may
be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
3 MP-857-2024
the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
6. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev
Builders Pvt. Ltd and Anr., AIR 2022 SC 4256, in para 70 has held as
under:-
"70.Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i)
Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 2
Rule 2CPC 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 6 Rule 17CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
(i) If the amendment is required for effective and proper
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
do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by
the party which confers a right on the other side, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
4 MP-857-2024
(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 mala fide, 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 hypertechnical
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
5 MP-857-2024
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
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 [Vijay Gupta v.
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)"
7. Having regard to the aforesaid law laid down in case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and also keeping in view the
provisions Order 6 Rule 7 C.P.C, it is found that the plaintiffs/petitioners
have proposed the amendment in respect of mutation which was earlier
granted in favour of defendant, but after the order dated 28.11.2022 of
Collector, an order has been passed in favour of plaintiff.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the mutation in the Municipality
(Nagarpalika) record is only for the fiscal purpose and it has no concern with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14145
6 MP-857-2024
the title or possession over the property. Undisputedly, the suit was filed by
the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. The mutation in Municipal
record does not affect the case of plaintiff based on the title and possession.
Therefore, the proposed amendment is not at all necessary for the just
decision of the case. Moreover, it is filed after the commencement of trial
and in filing the aforesaid application no due diligence has been shown on
the part of plaintiffs/petitioners.
9. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
and law laid down in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, the
learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications of plaintiffs under
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C.
Accordingly, this Misc. Petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
