Smt. Janki Chote Sharma vs Ramvilash Depuriya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
1 MP-1067-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1067 of 2026
SMT. JANKI CHOTE SHARMA
Versus
RAMVILASH DEPURIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents No.1 to 4, though served.
ORDER
Office note indicates that respondent No.1/Ramvilas has already been
served, yet there is no representation on his behalf.
1. The present Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 10.02.2026
(Annexure P/1) passed by the V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhind, District
Bhind, in RCSA No.28/2023, whereby the application preferred by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment in
the plaint has been rejected.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has instituted a suit against respondent No.1/defendant and other
respondents, seeking a decree of declaration that the petitioner be declared
the owner in possession of 1/4th share in the suit property and that the sale
deed dated 06.09.1990 executed by Buddharam in favour of respondent No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
2 MP-1067-2026
is ineffective against her.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the
suit land being a joint family property, a portion thereof was illegally sold by
Buddharam, one of the co-sharers, to respondent No.1 through registered
sale deed dated 06.09.1990. Upon coming to know about the said sale deed,
the petitioner instituted the suit before the learned trial Court. During the
pendency of the suit, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.1 had
instituted Civil Suit No.110/2018 on 28.06.2018 against respondent
No.2/Guddi, wherein the petitioner and other members of the joint family
were not impleaded as defendants. The said suit came to be decided vide
judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023. Therefore, the petitioner moved an
application seeking amendment in the plaint as well as in the relief clause,
seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 passed
in Civil Suit No.110/2018 is ineffective against the petitioner.
4 . The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court
vide impugned order dated 10.02.2026 on the ground that the factum of
filing of the aforesaid civil suit and passing of the judgment and decree
therein was within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the
suit. It has further been observed that no reason has been assigned in the
application seeking amendment as to why the appropriate pleadings were not
incorporated in the plaint at the earlier point of time; that allowing the
amendment would change the nature of the suit; and that the petitioner had
already closed her evidence on 25.08.2025 and the matter was thereafter
fixed for recording of the evidence of the defendants. Therefore, the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
3 MP-1067-2026
trial Court found it inappropriate to allow the amendment.

5 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court for rejecting the questioned
application is not sustainable, inasmuch as the petitioner has not sought a
declaration that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 is a nullity.
Rather, she has simply sought a declaration that, since the said judgment and
decree was passed without impleading her as a party, the same is ineffective
against her and, therefore, the nature of the suit would not be changed by the
proposed amendment. He submits that even if the amendment is allowed, no
prejudice would be caused to the rights of the defendants, as the evidence of
the defendants is yet to commence and it would be open to them to suitably
amend their written statement, if so required. The petitioner, in her
application for amendment, has specifically pointed out that she was not a
party to Civil Suit No.110/2018 and, therefore, was not aware of the
judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023. This aspect, according to learned
counsel, has not been considered by the learned trial Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused
the record.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.1 has chosen not
to appear in the present proceedings despite service of notice.
8. The scope of amendment in pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
CPC has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of LIC vs. Sanjeev
Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, wherein it has held as under:
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
4 MP-1067-2026
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.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
5 MP-1067-2026
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]
9 . When the facts of the case in hand are examined in the light of
the law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of LIC (supra), it is seen
that the suit for declaration has been filed by the petitioner and, by way of
the proposed amendment, she is only seeking a further declaration that the
judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.110/2018 is
not binding and is ineffective against her. The said amendment is not likely
to change the nature of the suit, as has been incorrectly held by the learned
trial Court. The defendants have an opportunity to seek consequential
amendment in their written statement, if so advised, and thereby no prejudice
is likely to be caused to them.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26179
6 MP-1067-2026
learned trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment in the plaint is allowed. The
respondents shall be at liberty to seek consequential amendment in their
written statement, if so advised.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
7:28:59 PM