Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Prakash Mishra vs Rajendra Kandele on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
1 MP-1371-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1371 of 2023
RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA
Versus
RAJENDRA KANDELE
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Sr.
Div. Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, in civil suit No.3-B/2021, whereby the
application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been
rejected by the trial Court.
2.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which is filed as
Annexure P/4, by which para 3A has been proposed to be incorporated in the
plaint after para 3 which is explanatory in nature and since the defendant has
averred in his written statement that he on 27.07.2020 had made an RTGS
payment of Rs. ten lac in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, it is necessary for
the plaintiff to explain that transaction was a separate transaction and is not
related with the transaction of this case. It is also submitted that learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
2 MP-1371-2023
Court has dismissed the application on the ground that written statement was
filed on 15.12.2021 while application has been filed almost after a year on
05.12.2022. The delay, however, cannot be a ground to reject the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. He relied upon the orders of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the cases of Indra Singh Yadav vs. Gopal Babu Vyas
decided on 25th August, 2023 in M.P.No.3214/2023 and M/s Vallabh
Electronics vs. Branch Manager United Bank of India decided on 21.06.2019
in M.P. No.1396/2019.
3.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
prayer and petition on the ground that plaintiff after the averments in the
written statement is trying to rebut it on false ground. He had ample
opportunity after filing of written statement to incorporate the proposed
amendment, but he failed to do so. Keeping in view the provisions of Order
6 Rule 17 of CPC such application is not tenable and learned trial Court has
rightly dismissed the application. There is no ground for interference with
the impugned order.
4.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
available on record.
5 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Singh
Yadav (supra) in para 11 and 12 has held as under :-
11.It is a settled principle of law that the Rules of Procedure are
handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the
parties. It is also well settled that amendment in the pleadings
cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence,
inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The
Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is
negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the
pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
3 MP-1371-2023
governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.
12.The courts should try the merits of the case that come before
them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be
necessary for determining the real question in controversy between
the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side.
6 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Vallabh
Electronics (supra) in para 12, 13 and 14 has held as under :-
"12. So far as the delay in making the application for amendment
of plaint is concerned, it is well established principle of law that
mere delay cannot be a ground for rejection of the application
unless and until a serious prejudice is caused to the defendants.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber vs. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 has held as under:-
"8. It is fairly settled in law that the amendment of pleadings under
Order 6 Rule 17 is to be allowed if such an amendment is required
for proper and effective adjudication of controversy between the
parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings, subject to
certain conditions such as allowing the amendment should not
result in injustice to the other side; normally a clear admission
made conferring certain right on a plaintiff is not allowed to be
withdrawn by way of amendment by a defendant resulting in
prejudice to such a right of the plaintiff, depending on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. In certain situations, a time-
barred claim cannot be allowed to be raised by proposing an
amendment to take away the valuable accrued right of a party.
However, mere delay in making an amendment application itself
is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be
compensated in terms of money. Amendment is to be allowed
when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side. This
Court in a recent judgment in B.K. Narayana Pillai v.
Parameswaran Pillai after referring to a number of decisions, in
para 3 has stated, thus: (SCC p. 715)
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on
such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is
wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the
interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various
High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is
equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not
adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the
general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be
compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be
permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice
between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to
avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
4 MP-1371-2023
In para 4 of the same judgment this Court has quoted the following
passage from the judgment in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v.
Damodar Valley Corpn.: (AIR pp. 97-98, para 7)
"The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by
amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action
particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred:
Weldon v. Neal. But it is also well recognized that where the
amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of
action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment
will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of
limitation: See Charan Das v. Amir Khan and L.J. Leach and Co.
Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co."
This Court in the same judgment further observed that the
principles applicable to the amendment of the plaint are equally
applicable to the amendment of the written statement and that the
courts are more generous in allowing amendment of the written
statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in
that event. It is further stated that the defendant has a right to take
alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an
exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should
not be subjected to serious injustice and that any admission made
in favour of the plaintiff conferring right on him is not
withdrawn."
14. As already observed, cross-examination of the plaintiff
witness has not begun, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to
the respondents, if the amendment sought by the petitioner is
allowed, otherwise the suit filed by the petitioner may be
dismissed as not maintainable in absence of consequential relief.
7 . Recently in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs.
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr., AIR 2022 SC 4256 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has summed up the position in this respect 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
adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
5 MP-1371-2023
(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 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15810
6 MP-1371-2023
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897) :
(AIROnline 2022 Del 1797)."
8 . In this case, though the application for proposed amendment has
been filed after one year of the submission of written statement, but in the
considered opinion of this Court, the amendment is necessary for
determining the real question and for proper adjudication of the controversy
between he parties and since the evidence has not started, no prejudice will
be caused to the other side. Testing the application on the touchstone as held
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India
(supra) the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is liable to be allowed
though for delay appropriate cost may be imposed on the plaintiff.
9. Consequently, keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid cases,
the order of the trial Court is found erroneous and therefore is hereby set
aside allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on the cost of
Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in District Legal Services Authority of the
concerned district. After depositing such amount, amendment may be
incorporated in the plaint and an opportunity for consequential amendment
shall be provided to the other side and the trial Court then may proceed
further in the suit as per law.
10. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ms/-
