Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shamim Bano vs Moh. Shahrukh on 31 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31582
1 MP-6202-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 6202 of 2024
SHAMIM BANO AND OTHERS
Versus
MOH. SHAHRUKH
Appearance:
Shri Mohit Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Janhavi Bhavsar - Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on : 22.09.2025
Pronounced on : 31.10.2025
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on
behalf of the petitioners questioning the correctness of order dated
04.10.2024 passed by the trial Court in a pending Civil Suit, rejecting the
application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). By way of the
said application, the defendants/petitioners are seeking amendment in the
written-statement.
2. Fact in short is that, respondent filed suit for recovery on the basis
of cancellation of sale agreement between late Akhtar Hussein (husband of
petitioner No. 1 & father of petitioners No. 2 to 5) & respondent. The
petitioners filed written statement denying the factum of entering of sale
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31582
2 MP-6202-2024
agreement. It is also submitted that there were other transactions of money
between late Akhtar Hussain and respondent and his family member. The
aforesaid amendment application was filed because of the discovery of two
transaction of money made on 22.06.2017 & 02.09.2020. Out of this two
transaction, one was made by the Akhtar Hussein in the account of
respondent before the cancellation of agreement dated 02.05.18, showing that
there was no as such agreement of sale was signed between the parties
otherwise why would seller i.e. Akhtar Hussein would make payment in the
account of purchaser before the cancellation of agreement, and another was
made by the late Akhtar Hussein in the account of father of the respondent,
showing that there were other business transaction between late Akhtar
Hussein & respondent and his family members. The said I.A. was filed so as
to make this necessary addition in the written statement for materializing the
submission already made in written statement. The same has been rejected
by the learned trial Court. Hence, present petition is preferred.
3. Shri Mohit Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in passing
the impugned order. The amendment sought to be introduced vide I.A. No.
4/2022 by the petitioners, is necessary for the proper disposal of the matter.
The said amendment also brings clarity regarding the total payment deposited
by the deceased Akhtar Hussein in the account of the respondent. It is also
contended that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit after the death of Akhtar
Hussein and therefore, the petitioners were not aware about various
transactions of payment. The amendment application ought to have be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31582
3 MP-6202-2024
allowed in view of specific plea of the respondent in the written statement
that there was no as such contract as been entered by the deceased Akhtar
Hussain and the respondent herein has made false sale agreement on basis of
other payment transactions between Akhtar Hussein and respondent and his
family. It is further contended that the amendment has sought also necessary
in view of fact that respondents/ plaintiffs have not mentioned anything
about aforesaid payment dated 22.06.2017 amounting to Rs 5,00,000/- &
payment dated 02.09.2020 of Rs 5,00,000/- in the plaint neither the aforesaid
payments were recorded in the receipts dated 25.09.17 & 05.02.21. Hence, it
is prayed that present petition be allowed by quashing the impugned order.
4. Ms. Janhavi Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by which aforesaid
application has been dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In the relevant provision, under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC,, it is
specifically provided that
"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 question 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-IND:31582
4 MP-6202-2024
the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial."
6. The Court is to consider whether the petitioner provided sufficient
grounds for amendment and whether the delay in filing the petition affects
their claim. The first part of the relevant provision empowers the Court to
exercise discretion to order amendment of pleading at any stage of the
proceedings. But the second part is imperative, that is, when the same is
necessary for the purpose of determining the case in controversy between the
parties. In this case, at the outset the amendment application was filed at the
time of cross-examination of the respondent, and such amendment primarily
appears to be necessary to determine the case.
7. In this context, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (dead) by Lrs & Ors., [(2019) 4 SCC
332], is worth referring, which runs as under :-
"7. Leave to amend may be refused if it
introduces a totally different, new and
inconsistent case, or challenges the
fundamental character of the suit. The
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually
prevents an application for amendment of
pleadings from being 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 the trial. The
proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute
discretion to allow amendment at any stage.
Therefore, the burden is on the person who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31582
5 MP-6202-2024
seeks an amendment after commencement of
the trial to show that in spite of due diligence,
such an amendment could not have been
sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute
that an amendment cannot be claimed as a
matter of right, and under all circumstances.
Though normally amendments are allowed in
the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of
litigation, the court needs to take into
consideration whether the application for
amendment is bona-fide or mala-fide and
whether the amendment causes such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money."
8. On going through the record, it is clear that the application for
amendment of the written statement was rejected by the trial Court. The
rejection was made on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit
against the petitioners on 12.10.2022 for recovery of Rs.1,09,00,000/-. In
which, the petitioners/defendants filed their written statement on 30.11.2023.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence and in the application under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, neither the source of documents on the basis of
amendment has been sought, nor any information through which, the
documents necessary for amendment has been mentioned. The case is of the
year 2022 and at the stage of evidence. Hence, inconsistent plea cannot be
allowed to be taken.
9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the application for amendment of the plaint is not only belated but also not
bona-fide, and, if the application for amendment in written statement is
allowed, the same would lead to a travesty of justice. Learned trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31582
6 MP-6202-2024
not committed any error in dismissing the petitioners' application.
10. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. The
Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Another, [2010 (9) SCC 385] while considering the scope of
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
judgement of a Court, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional
jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or
justice.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference in the
impugned order is made out. The present petition sans merit and is
dismissed.
12. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
