Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Chetrapal Baba Charitable Society ... vs Rajendra Kumar Jain on 17 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Misc. Petition No.4988 of 2022
SHRI CHETRAPAL BABA CHARITABLE SOCIETY SAMITI
SANJEEVANI MULTI SPECIALITY HOPITALGADA COLONY
GUNA MP AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
APPERANCE
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore -
Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 13/12/2024
Delivered on : 17/5/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is preferred against the orders dated 30.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 passed
by V District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No.1-A of 2015, whereby
applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the
petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment with regard to bringing on record
some subsequent events by adding Paras 12(A) & 12(B) [Annexure P/4,
dated 19.09.2022] as well as Para 11(A) [Annexure P/6, dated
20.10.2022] in the plaint were rejected and while rejecting the
applications, the learned Trial Court had went on to decide the merits of
the amendment which was impermissible. Assailing the aforesaid order,
the present petition has been filed.
2. Facts in nutshell are that a suit was filed by the
petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration and specific performance of
agreement to sale against the respondents/defendants with regard to suit
property. The defendants/respondents had filed their written statement
in the plaint and denied all the allegations made therein. In the pending
civil suit, applications under Order VI Rule 17 were filed seeking
certain amendments with regard to bringing on record the subsequent
events in the plaint. Opposition was made on the fulcrum that the
plaintiffs did not disclose as to why the amendment claiming relief of
possession was not brought in time and thus after commencement of
trial as per proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC amendment
cannot be permitted to be incorporated. Learned Trial Court after
hearing on the aforesaid applications rejected the same vide impugned
orders dated 30.09.2022 and 17.10.2022. Hence, the present petition.
3. Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore -
Advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs has submitted before this Court
that the only question which is required to be gone into at the stage of
consideration of applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by a Court
is whether such amendments with regard to bringing on record the
subsequent events in the plaint would be necessary for decision of real
controversy between the parties of the suit and at that stage the Court
cannot go into question of merits of the amendment and as the learned
Trial Court had went on to decide the merits of the applications, without
deciding the relevancy, the findings are perverse and illegal, therefore,
deserves to be quashed. In that regard, he had placed reliance in the
matter of Andhra Bank vs. Abn Amro Bank N.V. & Others reported
in AIR 2007 SC 2511.
4. It was further submitted that since the proposed amendment is
necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter, therefore, rejection of
the application for amendment is bad in law, as by the amendment, the
nature of suit will not change and no new cause of action would arise, if
the amendment application is allowed and also since the trial is at a
preliminary stage that of plaintiff's evidence, therefore, the Court below
had erred in rejecting the application.
5. Learned counsel had further argued that merely on the ground of
delay application for amendment cannot be rejected, as the Court has to
see the nature of the suit and the proposed amendment and if the goes to
the root of the case, it should be allowed.
6. It was also argued that in the month of October, 2022, the
defendants/respondents had received a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- from the
petitioners/ plaintiff's and even the slot for registration was booked but
on the date fixed for registration, they didn't book before the Registrar
and this subsequent event was required to be brought on record, but
learned Trial Court on the ground of delay rejected the application,
which is per-se illegal.
7. It was further submitted that even the amendment sought for
would unable the Court to pin pointedly consider the real dispute
between the parties and thereby deliver the decision more satisfactorily,
but the learned trial Court misdirected itself in going into the merits of
the amendment and thus, the very order of rejection suffers from
perversity and illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
8. It was further submitted that the power to allow the amendment is
wide and can be exercised at any stage of proceedings on the guidelines
which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in
catena of their judgments. Though he admits this fact that amendment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in all circumstances, but he
submits that it is equally true that the Court while deciding such prayer
should not adopt hyper technical approach and liberal approach should
be the general rule.
9. Lastly, it was submitted that technicalities of law should not be
permitted to hamper the Court in administration of justice between the
parties and also amendments are required to be allowed in the pleadings
to avoid multiplicity of litigation. He has further placed reliance in the
matter of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K. K. Modi & Others
reported in AIR 2006 SC 1647. It was, thus, prayed that the present
petition be allowed and impugned orders herein be set aside.
10. None for the respondents even after service of notice.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the
amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :-
"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 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."
13. What can be understood from a reading of the above provision is
that, (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage; (b)
amendment must be necessary to determine the "real question of
controversy" "inter se parties"; (c) if such amendment is sought to be
brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the
same has to come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part
of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before
that point of time, when it was actually brought. The law with regard to
the amendment in the pleadings in that regard is required to be
considered. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal
approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same
cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such
power.
14. It is trite law that the Court may allow the amendment at any
stage of the procedure even if it based on inconsistent or contradictory
plea, if no prejudice is caused to either side. In terms of the provisions
of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC "at any stage of the proceedings" and "for the
purpose of determining the real question of the controversy" are
important. The whole object for the purpose of introduction of Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to shorten
the litigation and to settle the entire dispute addressed, though however,
the amendment should not or must not jeoparadize the case of the other
side, in such a manner, which goes to non-suit the other side.
15. The amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to be
allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective
adjudication of the controversy between the parties as well as to avoid
multiplicity of the cases subject to certain conditions such as allowing
the amendment does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side
and if no such eventualities exists the amendment could be allowed
16. The Apex Court in the matter of North Eastern Railway
Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, reported in (2008) 8
SCC 511 has held as under:
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting or disallowing amendments
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the
relevant time) are concerned, these are also well
settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment
of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field,
it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed
which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working
injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary
for the purpose of determining the real questions in
(2008) 8 SCC 511 8|SLP(C)30324/2019 controversy
between the parties. Amendments should be refused
only where the other party cannot be placed in the
same position as if the pleading had been originally
correct, but the amendment would cause him an
injury which could not be compensated in costs.
[Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar
Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]"
17. Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors
have been outlined for the application of Order 6 Rule 17. Recently, the
Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Another reported in (2022) 16
SCC 1, after considering various precedents in regard to the amendment
of pleadings, had culled out certain principles, which are reproduced as
under:-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. 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.
71.2. 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.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties.
71.3.2. 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).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required
to be allowed unless:
71.4.1. 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,
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the
suit, 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide,
or
71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a
valid defence.
71.4.5. 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.
71.4.6. 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.
71.4.6. 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.
71.4.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where
it is intended to rectify the absence of material
particulars in the plaint.
71.4.9. 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.
71.4.10. 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.
71.4.11. 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. (Pls. See Vijay Gupta
v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors. reported in 2022
SCC OnLine Del 1897)"
18. A perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court makes it clear
that the amendments are to be allowed barring the eventualities, i.e.,
they have effect of changing the nature of litigation or they cause
prejudice to the other party or an admission is being sought to be
withdrawn by the party on the strength of amendment. In the present
case, none of the aforesaid eventualities exists and as the case is at the
stage of plaintiffs' evidence, in the considered view of this Court, the
Trial Court has committed error in rejecting the applications for
amendment only to the extent of bringing on record subsequent events
by adding Paras 12(A) [Annexure P/] as well as Para 11(A) [Annexure
P/6] in the plaint by the impugned orders herein.
19. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh
and Others v. Manohar Singh & Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC
498 has held as under:
"17. Before we part with this order, we may also
notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides
that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed
when the trial of the suit has already commenced.
For this reason, we have examined the records and
find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It
appears from the records that the parties have yet to
file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the
record, it also appears that the suit was not on the
verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and
the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as
used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of
Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited
sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit,
examination of witnesses, filing of documents and
addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore,
parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find
any reason to reject the application for amendment
of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6
Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and
unfettered discretion to the court to allow an
amendment of the written statement at any stage of
the proceedings."
20. In the present case, it has come on record that the plaintiffs'
evidence is yet to start, which is even reflected from the impugned
orders, thus, in the light of the aforesaid enunciation, it can be said that
trial had not commenced, thus, the amendment would not be hit by the
Proviso.
21. This Court, in light of the aforesaid discussion, finds that for
proper and effective adjudication of the controversy the amendment to
the extent of bringing on record subsequent events by adding Paras
12(A) [Annexure P/] as well as Para 11(A) [Annexure P/6] is required to
be allowed, though it has been filed at belated stage. To this extent, the
impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 being unsustainable,
are hereby set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to allow the
petitioners/plaintiffs to incorporate the amendment to the extent of
bringing on record subsequent events by adding Paras 12(A) [Annexure
P/4] as well as Para 11(A) [Annexure P/6] in the plaint and proceed
with the matter accordingly. The respondents/defendants would be free
to carry out the consequential amendment, if so required.
22. Looking to the controversy involved in the matter, this Court in
the interest of justice deems it fit to direct the learned Trial Court to
expedite the hearing and shall decide the matter as expeditiously as
possible in accordance with law, as the same is pending since the year
2022.
23. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition
is partly allowed and disposed of.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
PAWAN
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
pwn*
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3a
b301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f
KUMAR
265f02d9d593f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4
FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEE
ED89153191C56E98CE21,
cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.05.17 17:26:18 +05'30'
