Madhya Pradesh High Court
Murari Lal vs Nathuram (Dead) Through Lrs (1) Smt. ... on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
1 WP-4745-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4745 of 2014
MURARI LAL
Versus
NATHURAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS (1) SMT. KATLI DEVI @
KALLO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhur Bhargava Advocate appeared for petitioner.
None for the LRs of the respondent No. 1 though served.
Shri Pavan Kumar Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the respondents
No. 3 & 4.
Shri Saket Chhiroliya, learned counsel for the respondent [R-6][LR/S].
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard
finally.
2 . This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15/07/2014 passed by First
Civil Judge, Class- I, Lahar, District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2013, whereby,
in the pending civil suit, application seeking amendment in the plaint under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the
application has been filed after a delay of nearly one year from the date of cause of
action and the petitioner herein has taken adjournments twice for producing
evidence, therefore, the same could not be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
2 WP-4745-2014
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit was filed by him for
the relief of partition and declaration of the suit property. An interim application
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff in the said suit
came be allowed vide order dated 26/04/2013 and, thereafter, certain
constructions were raised over the suit property by the respondents and to
incorporate the said fact and further relief in the said regard, an application for
amendment of plaint was filed by him. He submits that though the case was fixed
for evidence of the plaintiff, but the evidence was yet to be commenced. The
learned trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment filed by
the petitioner on the ground that there was a delay of one year on the part of the
petitioner in moving an application from the date of grant of temporary injunction
which was hit by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC. He further submits that
since his evidence is yet to be commenced, in case, amendment application is
allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as it would be open for
them to seek consequential amendment in their written statement. In support of
his contentions, he relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the
case of Gurbakhsh Singh vs Buta Singh reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 269 to
contend that amendment in question do not introduce any fresh ground and even
if there was delay, the amendment application ought to have been allowed.
Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 15/07/2014
with further prayer to allow the amendment application Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer and submit that necessary averments as regards aforesaid amendment exist
in para 5 of the plaint, no further requirement was there for amending the plaint.
The delay of one year in moving an application for amendment could not have
been allowed in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case
o f Mashyak Grih.Sahakari San.Maryadit vs Uman Habib Dhuka & Ors.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
3 WP-4745-2014
reported in (2013) 9 SCC 485 .
5. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. The learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner
not on the ground that there was delay in moving the said application after filing
of the suit. The delay of one year has been stated after passing of order of interim
injunction. That apart, the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the
averments made in the amendment application were not supported by any
documentary evidence.
8. In the light of amendment in the pleadings recently, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindu) and Ors.
reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 816 has held as under:-
"11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case,
let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings.
11.1 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. In North Eastern Railway Administration. Gorakhpur
v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511 it was 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 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.]"
11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
4 WP-4745-2014
factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule
17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128,
after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment
of pleadings, culled out certain principles:-
(i) 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.
(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be
ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice
to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same
should be disallowed if-
(a) 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.
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in
the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in
certain situations)
(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid
defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are
(1) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily
be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated
by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to
rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce
an additional or a new approach.
(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as
to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the
plaint.
12. The question that we have to consider, in the above backdrop
is whether the High Court fell in error in allowing the application
seeking leave to amend pleadings, in contravention of the statutory
language.
13. By way of the amendment, what is sought to be done is, to
question the validity of the Will, on the basis of which, the
defendant sought to have the suit dismissed, while also expanding
the scope of adjudication of the suit to include movable property.
It has to be then, demonstrated that (a) determination of the
genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in
determining the issues inter se the parties; and (b) given the
finding of the court below that the application was presented post
the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due
diligence, presented prior to such commencement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
5 WP-4745-2014
14. Be that as it may, the overarching Rule is that a liberal
approach is to be adopted in consideration of such applications.
[See also: Sanjeev Builders (supra); Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v.
Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 337; Usha Balasaheb
Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 602;
B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC
712)."
9. In the instant case, amendment in the plaint was sought by the petitioner
herein on the ground that after passing of the interim injunction order in his
favour, the respondents have raised certain new construction which was required
to be duly incorporated in the plaint along with prayer for direction for removal
of the said construction raised after passing of the order of interim injunction.
The amendment sought for by the petitioner was necessitated on account of
subsequent development. Though the petitioner was granted time to produce his
evidence, but the evidence was yet to be adduced, therefore, if the amendment is
allowed, no prejudice was to be caused to the respondents / defendants as the
consequential steps / action was open to be taken.
10. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Agrawal
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 385 in para 19 has held as under :-
"19. While considering whether an application for amendment
should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the
correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it
should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and
the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of
amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the
prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been
followed by the High Court in the instant case."
11 . In view of the above, the merits of the averments made in the application
seeking amendment was not required to be adjudged at the stage of consideration
of the application. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case
o f Mashyak Grih.Sahakari San.Maryadit (supra) will not be applicable in the
given facts and circumstances of the present case as the same pertains to delay in
filing of the application for amendment in cause of action which was available
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23013
6 WP-4745-2014
prior to date of institution of suit.
12. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of considered opinion that in the light of enunciation of law aforesaid
by Apex Court, the amendment sought for by the petitioner deserves to be
allowed. The order dated 15/07/2014 passed by First Civil Judge, Class- I, Lahar,
District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2013 is hereby set aside and the application
under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioner is allowed. It shall be open
for the respondents to seek consequential amendment in the written
statement. Looking to the fact that the proceedings of the civil suit was stayed
since 2014, learned trial Court is requested to take steps to dispose of the pending
civil suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
14 . All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar
