Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Langar Beedi Company Through Its ... vs Mrs. Bharti on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
1 MP-6040-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6040 of 2024
M/S LANGAR BEEDI COMPANY THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHAILENDRA NATH DWIVEDI
Versus
MRS. BHARTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anchit Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dhruv Agarwal - Advocate for respondent No.5/insurance
company.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :
"i) That the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned
Fourteenth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) be
set aside, and put in abeyance.
ii) Pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscious."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal
has erroneously rejected the application filed on behalf of the owner of the
offending vehicle/non-applicant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The
application was filed on the date when the evidence of the applicants had
commenced. As per the order sheet of the learned Tribunal, it was filed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
2 MP-6040-2024
the date fixed for applicant's evidence, hence, it ought to be considered
before the starting of evidence. It is also submitted that there is a
typographical mistake in the written statement as regards the deceased was
being travelled with his goods and such amendment is necessary for the just
decision of this case. Learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the
application which ought to be allowed. He has placed reliance on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary,
(2019) 15 SCC 628.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/insurance
company has opposed the prayer on the ground that the proposed amendment
has been filed after the trial is started and keeping in view the proviso of
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, such application cannot be allowed. Hence, learned
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record,
it reveals that though the case was fixed for evidence of applicants/claimants
when the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner/owner of the offending vehicle. The petitioner seeks to
incorporate the amendment as regards the capacity of deceased travelling in
the vehicle that he was travelling for the security of goods being carried by
offending vehicle and therefore, he was in capacity of representative of
owner of vehicle.
5. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is as follows:
"17. Amendment of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
3 MP-6040-2024
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, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
6. In case of Varun Pahwa (supra) , it is held by Apex Court that
amendment application to amend the plaint to rectify inadvertent procedural
mistake by Advocate in describing parties in cause title of suit/memo of
parties are permissible. It is held that the rules of procedure cannot defeat the
substantive rights of the parties.
7. In case of Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and Ors.,
(2018) 2 SCC 132 Apex Court has held that after framing of issues, case was
fixed for recording of evidence of the plaintiff, but instead of producing
evidence, plaintiff took adjournment and in meantime he filed an application
under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Plaintiff led evidence thereafter and
according to the plaintiff, he led evidence even in regard to the amended
pleadings. In these circumstances, the amendment application was allowed.
In this regard, paragraphs 14, 17 and 22 of the judgment are as
follows:
"14. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999 with a view to
shortage litigation and speed of the trial of the civil suits, Rule 17
of Order VI was omitted, which provision was restored by
Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with a rider in the shape of the
proviso limiting the power of amendment to a considerable extent.
The object of newly inserted Rule 17 is to control filing of
application for amending the pleading subsequent to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
4 MP-6040-2024
commencement of trial. Not permitting amendment subsequent to
commencement of the trial is with the object that when evidence is
led on pleadings in a case, no new case be allowed to set up by
amendments. The proviso, however, contains an exception by
reserving right of the Court to grant amendment even after
commencement of the trial, when it is shown that in spite of
diligence, the said pleas could not be taken earlier. The object for
adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite adjudication of the
cases.
17. Although Order 6 Rule 17 permits amendment in the
pleadings "at any stage of the proceedings", but a limitation has
been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application
for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced.
Reserving the Court's jurisdiction to order for permitting the party
to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence
the parties could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order 18
CPC deals with "hearing of the suit and examination of
witnesses". Issues are framed under Order 14. At the first hearing
of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement
and after examination under Rule 1 of Order 14 is to frame issues.
Order 15 deals with "disposal of the suit at the first hearing", when
it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or
a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the
party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of
suit commences.
22. The Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 prohibited entertainment of
amendment application after commencement of the trial with the
object and purpose that once parties proceed with the leading of
evidence, no new pleading be permitted to be introduced. The
present is a case where actually before parties could led evidence,
the amendment application has been filed and from the order dated
14.02.2014, it is clear that the plaintiff's case is that parties has led
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
5 MP-6040-2024
evidence even on the amended pleadings and plaintiff's cases was
that in view of the fact that the parties led evidence on amended
pleadings, the allowing the amendment was mere formality. The
defendant in no manner can be said to be prejudiced by the
amendments since plaintiff led his evidence on amended pleadings
also as claimed by him."
8. Here in this case, the application for amendment was filed on the
date when the evidence was to be started on behalf of the claimants and
owner of the offending vehicle has raised plea to clarify the capacity of
deceased on the vehicle by proposed amendment. The proposed amendment
seems to be necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties and
since the evidence of the claimants has started. The other parties have ample
opportunity for consequential amendment and to adduce the evidence to
rebut such contention, therefore, it cannot be said that the prejudice is caused
to the other parties by introducing such amendment.
9. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the provisions regarding
amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and for a just decision of the
case, it is necessary to address all the controversies. The application for
amendment in the written statement by petitioner/non-applicant No.2 is
liable to be allowed but certainly on certain cost for delay.
10. Consequently, the order impugned being not tenable and is hereby
set aside and the application on behalf of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule
17 of CPC dated 04/10/2024 is hereby allowed on the cost of Rs.4000/-. The
cost shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Office of Legal Services
Authority in the concerned district. After deposition of such cost, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13299
6 MP-6040-2024
petitioner/non-applicant No.2 shall be entitled to incorporate the proposed
amendment in the written statement. Needless to say that the other parties to
the lis have an opportunity for consequential amendment and to lead rebuttal
evidence with regard to it.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in above
terms.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Monika
