Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nadurga Grah Nirman Sahakari Sasntha ... vs Shekh Moh. Salim on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29461
1 MP-3849-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3849 of 2025
NADURGA GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SASNTHA MARYADIT INDORE
Versus
SHEKH MOH. SALIM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Javed Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ghan Shyam Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
Dr. Vivek Pandey, Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
Ms. Mradula Sen - Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.6/State.
Heard on: 26.08.2025
Delivered on: 09.10.2025
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by 29th District
Judge, Indore, in RCS-47-A/14 whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 1(3)
of the CPC for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.
2. The suit has been instituted by respondent no.1/plaintiff for fulfillment of
specific agreement under Order 7 Rule 1 in compliance with the Specific
Performance Act against the Petitioner/defendant A.1 and respondents 2 to 3, and
for declaring the sale deeds dated 20.12.2008 and 03.02.2007, executed and
registered by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal and void.
The issues in the case have been determined, the respondent No.1/plaintiff's
evidence has been completed and the case was fixed for the examination of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29461
2 MP-3849-2025
petitioner/defendant No.1. In the meantime, the petitioner/defendant no.1 filed
two applications one under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC and another under Order 6,
Rule 17 of CPC to take additional documents along with reply and to amend the
reply based on the new records. The subordinate court allowed the application
filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC and dismissed the application filed under
Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC vide the impugned order and hence the petitioner has
filed this petition seeking permission for the amendment.
3. Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant no.1 argued that the current Officer-
In-Charge (Co-operative Inspector) appointed by Co-operative Department, after
his appointment, investigated the institution's records. On 15.04.2025 he got the
information through RTI that a First Information Report (FIR) had been filed in
2008 by the former liquidator, B.S. Patel, against respondents 2 &3 with regard to
irregularities. It was further revealed that the cooperative department had issued a
show-cause notice to the respondents under Section 53(2) of the MP Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960. This led to action against them under Section 53(1) of the
Act. Resultantly, the board of management was dissolved on December 21, 2006,
The chairman appealed the dissolution order, but the Joint deputy registrar of
cooperative societies upheld the decision on May 11, 2007.
4. It is further contended that all the above documents Annexure-P/5 to P/8
were received by the petitioner on 15.05.2024 and on 16.05.2024, the petitioner
filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the
Subordinate Court. The application for taking the said documents on record was
filed under Order 8 Rule 1 Sub-rule 3 CPC. The Subordinate Court accepted the
application for taking the documents on record, however, without assigning any
reason passed the impugned order Annexure-P/1 dismissing the petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29461
3 MP-3849-2025
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned trial Court has erroneously held
that the documents in the light of which the amendment is sought by the defendant
were in existence before the presentation of the post-suit. The said amendments
have been sought by the defendant at the stage of evidence, the case is pending
since 2008, however, the amendments, which are contrary to the earlier pleadings,
have been sought after a lapse of 16 years.
5. In support of his contentions counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors.
Etc vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc reported as AIR 2006 SC 2832 and
Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd., vs. Manoharlal reported in (2017) 5 SCC
212, wherein after analysing various citations, basic principles have been laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been held that the facts coming to
knowledge of party concerned after filing of the eviction petition can be permitted
to be brought on record by amendment of pleadings. Therefore counsel prayed
that the impugned order which is illegal and contrary to law, deserves to the set
aside.
6. Counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff has not filed any reply before
this Court so also before the trial Court and has not shown any objection.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has
opposed the prayer and submitted that in the name of the amendments through
additional documents, the petitioner/defendant no.1 is indirectly challenging the
sale deed in support of respondent no.1/plaintiff. Hence, the aforesaid relief for
amendment in the plaint can not be allowed. It is also submitted that the
respondent No.1/plaintiff's evidence has been completed and the case was fixed for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29461
4 MP-3849-2025
the examination of petitioner/defendant No.1, at this stage an amendment is being
sought. Thus, it is submitted that the application having been filed after a delay of
more than 10 years cannot be allowed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. On perusal of the impugned it is evident that the trial Court has rejected
the application for amendment on the ground that the requisite documents through
which the amendment is sought existed before filing of the suit. The amendment
has been sought in the year 2024, whereas the documents were in existence since
2008, Therefore, in the light of the guidelines framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Life Insurance Co-operation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 - the trial Court has rejected the
application for amendment.
10. In the case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, Baldev Singh &
Ors. Etc (Supra), the amendment did not introduce any fresh cause of action; the
facts proposed in the amendment were not being in the personal knowledge of the
appellant and having obtained from the State Department concerned recently, the
same was be allowed to be brought on record for consideration and no prejudice
was likely to be caused to the respondent, if the application has been allowed.
However in the case at hand, the documents through which the amendment is
sought existed since 2008 and the application has been filed after a lapse of 16
years.
11. In view of the aforesaid and coupled with fact that since the case is at the
stage of evidence where the respondent no.1/plaintiff's evidence has already been
completed and the petitioner/defendant examination is to commence,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29461
5 MP-3849-2025
therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amendment sought by
the petitioner/defendant cannot be taken on record, as the same runs contrary to
the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the proviso of which reads as under
:-
"Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after
the trial has commenced, unless Court comes to the conclusion that in
spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial."
12. Accordingly, miscellaneous petition stands dismissed by affirming the
impugned order. Needless to say that, order of this Court has not reflected upon
the merits of the case, and the learned Judge of the trial court is requested to decide
the issues on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi
