Bhagat Bhikam Singh vs Sujata Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
1 MP-6414-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6414 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030287012026
BHAGAT BHIKAM SINGH
Versus
SUJATA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Government Advocate for respondents No.5
and 6/State.
ORDER
The instant miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenges the order dated 17.10.2026 passed by the
learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.)
(hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court"), in RCSA No.546/2025, whereby
the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"),
seeking amendment in plaint, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit challenging the sale deeds dated
11.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 in respect of suit land, as mentioned in the plaint,
wherein the petitioner has been been impleaded as a defendant. He submits
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
2 MP-6414-2026
that in the plaint, the relief pleaded is that the aforesaid sale deeds are nullity

and ineffective against the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, an
application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by
the plaintiffs, seeking amendment of the pleadings made in the plaint by
incorporating the words " " (Impersonated Document) at

ितपण द तावेज़
various places in the plaint wherein, the sale deeds dated 11.02.2011 and
14.02.2011 were mentioned.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
the learned Trial Court, without proper appreciation of the amendment
sought for by the plaintiffs, allowed the said application vide the impugned
order dated 17.02.2026. He submits that allowing the application for
amendment amounts to withdrawal of the admission made in the pleadings
of the plaint. The same also amounts to altering the relief claimed. Referring
to the averments made in the plaint placed on record alongwith the petition,
it is argued that a bare reading of the same would indicate that the execution
of the questioned sale deeds is not disputed by the plaintiffs but now, by
virtue of an amendment sought to be incorporated and by insertion of the
term "Impersonated Document" at various places in the plaint, the entire
pleadings are sought to be altered. Referring to the pleadings made in para 9
of the plaint, he submits that there are no averments in the original pleadings
regarding fraud or impersonation and now, on account of the amendment
allowed by the Trial Court, the nature of the suit is sought to be altered. He
further submits that in any case, if the learned Trial Court has allowed the
questioned application for amendment, opportunity to seek consequential
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
3 MP-6414-2026
amendments in the written statement deserves to be granted to the

petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the
question of admission.
5. The law on the amendments in pleadings has been considered by the
Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev
Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, as follows:
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC 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 part of
Order 6 Rule 17CPC.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
4 MP-6414-2026
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 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. (See Vijay Gupta
v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)"
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
5 MP-6414-2026
6. When the facts of the case in hand are examined in the light of the

proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of LIC (supra), it
is revealed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is at the initial stage and the
plaintiffs' evidence has not yet commenced. That apart, the pleading of
execution of the questioned sale deeds by fraud and the sale deeds being
forged and fabricated documents are already placed in para 9 of the plaint.
By way of the questioned amendment, the plaintiffs intend to insert the
words "Impersonated Document", which is nothing but elaboration of the
pleadings already made in the plaint. Therefore, the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards alteration in the
nature of suit and the relief, or withdrawal of an admission made in the plaint
on account of allowing the questioned amendment application, are not borne
out from the record. The petitioner has an opportunity to rebut the pleadings
made in the plaint by seeking consequential amendments in the written
statement, if any, filed.
7. In view of the aforesaid considerations, this Court is of the opinion
that the questioned application for amendment in the plaint has been
considered by the learned trial Court within the parameters laid down by the
Apex Court in LIC (supra). Therefore, the order impugned in the present
petition does not suffer from any palpable illegality or jurisdictional error
warranting interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having limited scope of
interference. Accordingly, finding no case for interference, the admission to
the present petition is declined.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32883
6 MP-6414-2026
8. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek

consequential amendments in written statement, if so advised.
9. With the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed.
10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02