[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash vs Ratanlal on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7185
1 MP-1400-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1400 of 2026
OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS
Versus
RATANLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Dr. Umesh Manshore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Surbhi Bahal, P.L. for respondent/State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 2.2.2026
(Annexure P/1) whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioners /
defendants before the trial Court vide I.A.No.1/2026 has been dismissed.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case is at
defendants' evidence and during cross examination some facts disclosed
proposed amendment was filed to be incorporated as para 9A after para 9 of
W.S. The application has been dismissed without considering the merits of
the application, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition by setting aside
the impugned order and allowing the application for amendment under Order
6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman & Anr. V/s.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7185
2 MP-1400-2026
Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. dated 27.9.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.7043/2012.
Para 6, 7 and 8 are relevant which reads as under :-
"6) Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the
appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order VI
Rule 17 which is 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."
7) It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment
of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining
the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in
accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the
trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that
event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
(8) The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999,
however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an
added proviso to prevent application for amendment 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 trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute
discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed
after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it
could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should
try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently,
allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question
in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the
power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the
proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the
amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by
way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the
facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated
by this Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2
SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt.Ltd. and Others,
(2012) 5 SCC 337. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider
whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7185
3 MP-1400-2026
9) It is true that originally the appellants have approached the trial Court with a
prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1-3
herein from forcible and illegal dispossession of the appellants herein from the
land in dispute. Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein (Defendant Nos. 1-3 therein) filed
written statement wherein they specifically alleged that they have stepped into
the shoes of Ramzanan and Smt. Bashiran and Rashidan on the basis of the
sale deeds dated 25.08.2003. It is the claim of the appellants that the above
said Ramzanan and Smt. Bashiran and Rashidan have no concern with the
ownership of the land in dispute and no right to alienate the suit land to the
defendants or anybody else. In view of the stand taken by the defendants in
their written statement, in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code, the appellants have specifically raised that the alleged sale deed Nos.
1810 and 1811 dated 25.08.2003 in favour of defendant Nos. 1-3 executed by
Ramzanan and Bashiran and Rashidan are liable to be set aside and have no
effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and Saifur-Rehman qua the suit land and
the mutation Nos. 781 and 782 sanctioned on the basis of above noted sale
deeds dated 25.08.2003 are also liable to be set aside. In view of the claim of
the appellants, we verified the necessary averments in the written statement of
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and we agree with the stand of the appellants.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
5 . It is not in dispute that after commencement of trial only in
exception circumstances amendment can be allowed, but such circumstances
have not been found in the instant case. Each and every pleading has been
replied till filing W.S. There can be no ground that any fact which has
appeared in cross examination will give rise to amendment in W.S. or plaint.
This fact has been taken into account by the learned Court below. The
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case
o f Abdul Rehman & Anr. (supra) is also of no help to him because
amendment has no bearing on the controversy involved in the civil suit.
Nothing has been shown that in spite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, therefore, this
Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Court below
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7185
4 MP-1400-2026
in dismissing the amendment application.
6. The petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
