[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Sharma vs Mahendra Singh Dandotiya on 20 March, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9829
1 MP-1778-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1778 of 2026
MUKESH SHARMA
Versus
MAHENDRA SINGH DANDOTIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Kumar Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred by petitioner/defendant no. 2, being aggrieved by
the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Morena (M.P.) in RCSA No. 66/2019, whereby the application preferred by
respondent no. 1/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
CPC for amendment in the plaint has been allowed.
2. A few facts giving rise to present petition, as narrated therein, are
that respondent no. 1/plaintiff filed a civil suit on 24.04.2019 for declaration
of title and permanent injunction regarding a plot forming part of Survey No.
624/1, situated near Sales Tax Barrier, Shiv Nagar, Morena. The
petitioner/defendant no. 2 contested the suit, claiming ownership and
possession vide a registered sale deed dated 11.07.2014 and asserting that
construction had commenced in January 2021. On 08.08.2024, the plaintiff
filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, alleging a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9829
2 MP-1778-2026
subsequent event. The plaintiff stated that while he was in Gwalior for his
wife's medical treatment in March 2024, defendant no. 2 trespassed into the
suit property by breaking the lock on 15.05.2024. Consequently, the plaintiff
sought to amend the plaint to include the relief for recovery of possession.
The Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.02.2026, allowed the said
application. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant no. 2 submitted that
the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and perverse. It is contended that
Trial Court, in its earlier order dated 13.12.2021 while rejecting the
injunction application, had already observed that the plaintiff failed to
establish possession. No such incident of trespassing occurred on
15.05.2024, as the defendant no. 2 has been in continuous possession since
2021. The plaintiff failed to produce any medical documents regarding his
wife's treatment or any police report regarding the alleged house-breaking.
The amendment seeks to introduce a completely distinct relief and a new
cause of action which was not sought at the time of the institution of the suit.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the
impugned order along material available record.
5. After considering the submissions and the material available on
record, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any
jurisdictional error. It is a well-settled principle of law that amendments to
pleadings should be allowed liberally, especially when they are based on
subsequent events, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The contention of
the petitioner regarding the veracity of the dispossession and the lack of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9829
3 MP-1778-2026
medical evidence pertains to the merits of the case, which can only be
adjudicated after the parties lead their evidence. At the stage of considering
an amendment application, the Court is not required to go into the
correctness or the merits of the facts sought to be incorporated. Since the
plaintiff is now seeking recovery of possession based on an alleged
subsequent dispossession, the nature of the suit remains essentially for the
protection of his purported title.
6. Consequently, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for
amendment to ensure a complete and final adjudication of controversy. No
interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
7. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
