Anurag Garg vs Kailash Chander on 6 January, 2026

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255




                                                                 1                                 CR-965-2025
                             IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI


                                                  CIVIL REVISION No. 965 of 2025
                                                      ANURAG GARG
                                                          Versus
                                               KAILASH CHANDER AND OTHERS
                          Appearance
                             Ms. Smriti Razban, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                             Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

                             Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.



                                                Reserved on              :      20.11.2025

                                                Pronounced on            :       06.01.2026

                                                                     ORDER

01. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as to "CPC") has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by

the learned Additional Distrit Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore in RCSA No. 152/2019 whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed.

02. For the purpose of decision of this petition, the facts need not be narrated in detail. Suffice is to say that petitioner filed a suit for declaration, injunction and partition of the suit property seeking 1/3 share in his ancestral property. During the proceedings, the petitioner apprised the Court about his

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255

2 CR-965-2025

notice to the respondents for production of original 'WILL' and despite service upon them, the respondents chose not to produce the original documents. The petitioner filed two applications viz. one under Order XVIII Rule 16 & 17 CPC and another under Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking permission to prove the 'WILL' by way of secondary evidence and to allow the petitioner to come as witness to prove the said document. The said applications have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.05.2025 and the said orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing M.P. No. 4010/2025, the same is pending before this Court in which notices have been issued on 11.08.2025 to the respondents.

03. During the pendency of M.P. No. 4010/2025, the evidence of the

plaintiff ensued. The petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint in the light of new documents being allowed to be exhibited by the Ld. Court. The stated application stands rejected by the impugned orders.

04. The aforesaid order has been challenged by petitioner by submitting that the learned Trial Court overlooked the mandate of law as envisaged in under Order VIII Rule 1A (4) CPC, whereby the document sought to be produced by the defendant is only for cross-examination of the plaintiff witness. The said documents cannot be part of substantive evidence and thus cannot be exhibited. He has also submitted that despite notice of production of the stated documents did not produce the same till cross examination of the plaintiff witness showing apparent malafide. The rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint overlooking that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255

3 CR-965-2025 defendants have produced necessary documents at a much belated stage and the same have been allowed to be exhibited to the detriment of the plaintiff/ petitioner. Learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the mandate of law propounded and clarified in "(2010) 8 SCC 24, Afcons Infrasr. Versus Cherian varkey Constn" and "(2024) 2 SCC 144, Mohd Wahid Vs. Nilofer" , that the documents used for confronting a witness during cross-examination is not a substantive part of evidence. On these grounds, he has prayed that present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

05. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that trial Court has passed the order in accordance with law. Therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

06. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

07. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, 2022 (16) SCC 1 has summarized the legal principles as regards amendment in the pleadings and has held as under:-

71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 2 Rule 2CPC 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255

4 CR-965-2025 part of Order 6 Rule 17 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 do 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 mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.6. 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.

71.7. 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. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

71.9. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255

5 CR-965-2025 for decision.

71.10. 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.

71.11. 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. [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)"

08. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that when the amendment sought is only in 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. In the present case, earlier also, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for calling documents and witness from Cantonment Board,which was accepted by the Trial Court on 05.08.2025 and again evidence of the plaintiff was started. Learned Trial Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that, the document sought to be exhibited by the petitioner/plaintiff, had been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:255

6 CR-965-2025 within his knowledge for a considerable period. The same in view of the aforesaid decision deserved to be and has rightly been allowed.

1 0 . Ex consequenti, it is held that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order rejecting the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs. The said order is accordingly affirmed and present petition stands dismissed.