Brij Bhushan Tiwari & Anr. vs Santosh Kumar Tiwari
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16.10.2026
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
Date of Uploading: 05.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010273402024
+ CM(M) 2554/2024 & CM APPL. 28233/2024 & CM APPL.
66637/2024 & CM APPL. 24345/2026 & CM APPL.
57609/2026
BRIJ BHUSHAN TIWARI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Shivani Lal, Mr.
Hiren Dasan, Mr. Ajay Sharma
and Mr. Unmukt Gera,
Advocates
versus
SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Surya Narayan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
J U D G M E N T
%
1. Through the present petition, the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District
1
Judge-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi , in
Civil Suit No. 59/2023, titled “Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Brij
Bhushan Tiwari” , whereby the application moved by the
respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
1
Hereinafter „learned Trial Court‟
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 1 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
2
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking amendment of the plaint,
was allowed, subject to the cost of Rs. 4,000/-.
2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the brief facts leading to filing
of the present petition are that on 01.05.2014, the respondent instituted
the suit seeking partition, permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction in respect of two properties situated in Karawal Nagar,
Delhi, namely property bearing No. A-1302, measuring 300 sq. yds.,
and House No. 91, measuring approximately 200 sq. yds., both
3
forming part of Khasra No. 18/20 . The subject properties had been
acquired by the parties‟ father, Late Dharamraj Tiwari, during his
lifetime.
3. In the written statement dated 09.10.2014, petitioner no.
1/defendant no. 1 disclosed that a portion measuring 75 sq. yds. of
property No. A-1302 had been transferred by the parties‟ father in
favour of petitioner no. 2/defendant no. 2, Mrs. Prema Tiwari, on
25.03.1998, pursuant to which documents, including a General Power
of attorney, an Agreement to Sell and a receipt, had been executed in
her favour. The respondent disputed the aforesaid claim in his
replication dated 02.02.2015.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent initially moved
an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of
petitioner no. 2/proposed defendant no. 2, which came to be dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 06.12.2018. Thereafter, on 02.02.2019,
the respondent moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of
the proposed amendments, the respondent sought the following
2
Hereinafter „ CPC‟
3
Hereinafter “Subject premises”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 2 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
amendments:
(i) amend the array of parties in so far as to implead the name of
Smt. Prema Tiwari as defendant no. 2;
(ii) amend the title of the suit seeking an additional prayer of
declaration with respect to the title documents dated 25.03.1998
through which the petitioner no. 2 is claiming ownership of land
admeasuring 75 sq. yds., of the subject premises:
(iii) amend the contents of Paragraphs No. 16A to 16D, 17, and 20
of the plaint; and
(iv) lastly, delete the existing prayer clause therein to incorporate an
additional prayer, seeking, inter alia , declaration of the title
documents dated 25.03.1998 as null and void-ab-initio .
5. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioners, and
the order impugned dated 11.01.2024 was passed by the learned Trial
Court. Learned Trial Court. While allowing the application under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it was observed that the proposed amendment
was intended to bring the controversy concerning the 75 sq. yds.
portion, and the documents executed in favour of petitioner no. 2
before the Court. The relevant portion of the said order dated
11.01.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“5. Undoubtedly, amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding
such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal
approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the
other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments
are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
Hence, it is a general rule, leave to amend will be granted to as to
enable the real question in issue between the parties to be raised on
the pleading, where the amendment will occasion no injury to the
opposite party, except such as can be sufficiently compensated for
by costs or other terms to be imposed by the order. The following
principles should be kept in mind while, dealing with the
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 3 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
applications for amendment of the pleadings- (i) All the
amendments should be allowed which are necessary for
determining of the real controversies in the suit; (ii) the proposed
amendment should not alter and be a substitute of the cause of
action on the basis of which the original list was raised; (iii)
Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the
admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of
facts would not be allowed to be incorporated by means of
amendment; (iv) Proposed amendment should not cause prejudice
to the other side which cannot be compensated by means of costs;
(v) Amendment of a claim or relief barred by time should not be
allowed; (vi) No amendment should be allowed which amounts to
or results in defeating a legal right to the opposite party on account
of lapse of time; (vii) No party should suffer on account of
technicalities of law and the amendment should be allowed to
minimise the litigation between the parties; (viii) the delay in filing
the petitions for amendment of the pleadings should be properly
compensated by costs; (ix) Error or mistake, which if not
fraudulent, should not be made the ground for rejecting the
application for amendments of pleadings. It is a tried proposition of
law, culled from various pronouncements, that bona fide
amendments, vital for adjudication of the real question in
controversy between the parties, should be allowed however
negligent the first omission and howsoever delayed the proposed
amendment, if the opposite party can be compensated with costs
and other terms to be imposed in the order. Conversely,
amendment should be refused where it is not necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question in controversy between
the parties. Reliance is placed upon Rameshkumar Agarwal v.
Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 337 and Manoharlal v.
NBM Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267.
6. With respect to the aspect of limitation/time barred as raised by
the defendant in his reply, it is to be noted that it is a very initial
stage in which issues are yet to be framed and these contentions are
to be decided scientifically with the help of evidence to be led by
the plaintiff at an appropriate stage. It is to be noted that the
defendant number 2 is the wife of defendant number 1 and it is the
defendant number 1 himself who has raised the issue qua the
defendant number 2. In his written statement nowhere it has been
submitted by defendant number 1 that he is not sharing the cordial
relations with his wife. There is absolutely no reason/proof which
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 4 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
may divulge that proposed amendments may alter the nature of the
suit. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, application of
the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC is
allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to be paid to the
defendant by the plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff is directed to file the amended plaint. Defendant is at
liberty to file any written statement to the amended plaint, if
required.
8. Application stands disposed of accordingly.”
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have
approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
seeking, inter alia , to set aside the same.
7. Mr. Uday Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 11.01.2024
suffers from material errors in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the
learned Trial Court. It is contended that the respondent sought to
introduce, by way of amendment, a relief for declaration that the
documents dated 25.03.1998, executed in favour of petitioner no. 2 in
respect of 75 sq. yds. pf property no. A-1302, are null and void ,
despite the claim being barred by limitation.
8. It is submitted that the respondent‟s assertion that he acquired
knowledge of the transfer only upon receipt of the written statement
dated 09.10.2014 is contrary to the record.
9. In this regard, the learned senior counsel draws the attention of
this Court to the following:
(i) The Action Taken Report dated 13.04.2012 filed by the
Investigating Officer in Compliant Case No. 246/2011 titled
„Kiran Devi v. Brij Bhushan Tiwari‟ , instituted by the wife of
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 5 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
respondent before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Karkardooma Courts, which records that the deceased father of
the parties had, before his demise, transferred ownership of the
land admeasuring 75 sq. yds. in favour of petitioner no. 2;
(ii) The order dated 28.06.2012 passed in the aforesaid complaint
case, which records that the status report was filed and a copy
thereof was supplied to the complainant;
(iii) The subsequent complaint dated 17.04.2014, addressed by the
wife of respondent to the SHO, PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi,
which states that the 75 sq. yds. of the subject premises stand in
the name of petitioner no. 2; and
(iv) The replication dated 02.02.2015 filed by the respondent against
the petitioner no. 1‟s written statement, wherein the ownership
of petitioner no. 2 over 75 sq. yds. of the subject premises was
specifically denied, and the admission and denial of documents
on behalf of both the parties stood concluded vide order dated
17.07.2015.
10. On the strength of the aforesaid record, learned Senior Counsel
submits that the proposed declaratory relief is barred by Article 58 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. The amendment, if permitted, would deprive
the petitioners of a valuable defense accrued by lapse of time.
4
Reliance is placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , to
contend that the respondent‟s assertion that he acquired knowledge of
the transfer only upon receipt of the written statement amounts to
concealment of facts and that a litigant who approaches the Court on a
false plea is not entitled to indulgence.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Trial
4
(1994) 1 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 6 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
Court, despite noticing in paragraph 5 of the impugned order that an
amendment introducing a claim or relief barred by limitation may
warrant rejection, failed to properly consider the petitioners‟
objections in the context of the admitted record. Instead, it deferred
determination of the issue to a later stage, observing that the matter
required to be examined “scientifically” on the basis of evidence. It is
contended that the question of limitation could have been considered,
at least prima facie, on the basis of the respondent‟s pleadings and the
documents on record, and that the failure to do so constitutes a failure
to exercise jurisdiction.
12. In support of this submission, reliance is place on Life
5
Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd ., to
contend that although amendments are ordinarily permitted to
facilitate adjudication of the real controversy, the introduction of a
time-barred claim is a relevant consideration and may justify refusal
of the amendment.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that the proposed
amendment changes the nature and character of the suit. The suit, as
originally instituted, sought partition and injunctive relief; the
amendment seeks to introduce a challenge to the documents dated
25.03.1998 on allegations of forgery and fabrication, along with a
declaratory relief and the impleadment of petitioner no. 2. Reliance is
placed upon the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in Basavaraj v.
6
Indira , in support of the contention that introducing a declaratory
relief by amendment in a suit for partition and separate possession
may impermissibly alter the nature of the suit, particularly where the
5
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128
6
2024 SCC OnLine SC 208
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 7 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
proposed relief is barred by limitation.
14. Learned counsel lastly submits that the amendment would
defeat a valuable right that has accrued to the petitioners by lapse of
time and ought, therefore, to have been disallowed. In support of the
objections to the proposed amendment, reliance is also placed on ‘L.C.
7
Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar’ , ‘K. Raheja Constructions
8
Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries ’, ‘Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
9
Narayanaswamy and Sons ’, ‘Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha
10
Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander, ’, and
11
‘Voltas Ltd. v. Rolta India Ltd., ’ ,
15. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the
findings of the impugned order, and submits that the proposed
amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and
was sought upon the disclosure made by the petitioners in the written
statement dated 09.10.2014. It is contended that the respondent
acquired knowledge of the alleged transfer of 75 sq. yds. of property
No. A-1302 in favour of petitioner no. 2 only upon its disclosure in
the written statement.
16. Learned counsel disputes the genuineness of the documents
dated 25.03.1998, purportedly executed by the parties‟ deceased father
in favour of petitioner no. 2. It is submitted that no transfer of the said
portion of the property had taken place and that the documents relied
upon by the petitioners are forged and fabricated. The respondent
further denies that possession of the said portion was ever delivered to
petitioner no. 2 and maintains that the properties continued to belong
7
(2016) 1 SCC 332
8
1995 Supp (3) SCC 17
9
(2009) 10 SCC 84
10
(2010) 14 SCC 596
11
(2014) 4 SCC 516
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 8 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
to the deceased father, whose legal heirs were permitted to use them.
17. It is further submitted that under the oral family settlement
arrived at between the brothers after their father‟s demise, House No.
91 was to fall exclusively to the respondent, who was also to receive
50 sq. yds. out of the property No. A-1302, while the remaining
portion was to be retained by petitioner no. 1. According to the
respondent, the petitioners subsequently resiled from the settlement
and relied upon the disputed documents to deny his entitlement to the
said 50 sq. yds.
18. Learned counsel denies that the Action Taken Report dated
13.04.2012 or the complaint dated 17.04.2014 established that the
respondent had knowledge of the alleged transfer before the filing of
the written statement. It is contended that the petitioners‟
interpretation of those documents is disputed and that the respondent‟s
suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. The
objection founded on Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is,
therefore, stated to be misconceived.
19. Learned counsel further submits that the proposed amendment
satisfies the requirements of Order VI Rule 17 CPC as it is necessary
for determining the real controversy between the parties and does not
impermissibly alter the nature of the suit. The question of limitation,
according to the respondent, cannot be conclusively determined in the
course of trial. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court duly
considered the objections raised by the petitioners and permitted the
amendment at a stage when the suit had not yet commenced, and
issues were yet to be framed, subject to costs of Rs. 4,000/-.
20. Heard. Perused the record.
21. At the outset, it is apposite to note the contours of the
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 9 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments, including ‘Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
12
Patil’ (2010) 8 SCC 329 , and ‘Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand
13
Goel’ , has held that the said jurisdiction ought to be exercised
sparingly, and only to ensure that the courts subordinate to this Court
remain within the bounds of their authority. Interference is warranted
only when a subordinate court assumes the jurisdiction, beyond their
scope, or exercises its jurisdiction in a manner which results in a
patent error that is apparent on the face of the record, is self-evident,
and goes to the root of the matter itself or results in manifest failure of
justice, causing grave and irreparable prejudice to a party.
22. The threshold for interference, as enunciated in the aforesaid
precedents, is high and therefore, it is well settled that this Court, in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the
order under challenge, and does not re-appreciate the material on
record or substitute the view of the subordinate court merely because
another view is plausible.
23. With the aforesaid in mind, the limited question for
consideration before this Court is whether the learned Trial Court,
while exercising its judicial discretion to allow the amendment
application moved by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
took into consideration the relevant parameters governing the
procedure for amendment of pleadings.
24. A plain reading of the provision given under Order VI Rule 17
CPC, makes it clear that it confers a discretionary power on the Court
12
(2010) 8 SCC 329
13
(2022) 4 SCC 181
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 10 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
to permit amendments that are necessary for culling out the real
controversy between the parties. However, the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 prescribes that once the trial has commenced, the exercise of
such power is subject to an additional requirement. The court must be
satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the
proposed amendment before the commencement of trial. The object of
the said proviso is to enable the Court to adjudicate effectively, and
completely upon the dispute between the parties, while ensuring that a
party does not introduce at a belated stage, an amendment which could
have been brought to the notice of the court earlier.
25. The aforesaid principles governing amendment of pleadings are
well settled. In Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) , the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated that liberal approach ought to be
adopted towards a prayer seeking amendment of pleadings. However,
it was also held that where a time-barred claim is sought to be
introduced by way of amendment, the fact that the claim may be time-
barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“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:
71.3.2. 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:
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 11 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
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.
71.4.4. 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.”
26. Similarly, the Hon‟ble Court in Revajeetu Builders (Supra) ,
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 12 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
enumerated certain factors to be taken into consideration while
allowing or rejecting an application for amendment. These said
parameters are reproduced hereinbelow:
“63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and
effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala
fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other
side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to
multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a
fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on
the date of application.”
27. It is equally well settled through the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Court in ‘Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs and
14
Others’ , that if the grant of amendment subserves the ultimate cause
of justice, and avoids multiplicity of litigation, the same should be
allowed. It was further observed therein that an amendment seeking
declaration of title does not introduce a different relief, so long as the
necessary factual basis in regard to the title has already been averred
in the un-amended plaint.
28. In light of the aforesaid principles, the controversy before this
Court is whether the application for amendment was considered by the
learned Trial Court in accordance with the parameters governing the
exercise of jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The principal
14
(2004) 6 SCC 415
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 13 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
objections raised by the petitioners relate to limitation and the alleged
alteration in the nature and character of the suit. These objections,
having a bearing on the permissibility of the proposed amendment,
required consideration by the learned Trial Court.
29. The first objection concerns limitation. The petitioners contend
that the respondent had knowledge of the alleged transfer of 75 sq.
yds. in favour of petitioner no. 2 much prior to the filing of the suit. In
support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the Action
Taken Report dated 13.04.2012, the order dated 28.06.2012 and the
complaint dated 17.04.2014. According to the petitioners, these
documents demonstrate that the respondent was aware of the alleged
transfer before the written statement dated 09.10.2014 disclosed the
same. The respondent, on the other hand, disputes this assertion and
maintains that he acquired knowledge of the documents only upon
their disclosure in the written statement.
30. It is well settled that the question of limitation, when raised in
opposition to an application for amendment, cannot be dealt with
mechanically. The Court is required to examine whether the proposed
amendment seeks to introduce a claim which is prima facie barred by
limitation or whether the objection involves disputed questions of fact
which cannot appropriately be determined at that stage. The mere fact
that the suit is at an initial stage does not, by itself, conclude the
inquiry. The objection of limitation must receive due consideration at
the stage of deciding the amendment application itself, and the Court
must determine whether the material on record establishes a bar of
limitation or whether the objection is otherwise not sustainable at that
stage. The issue cannot be left open without examining the basis of the
objection and recording a reasoned conclusion thereon.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 14 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
31. In the present case, the learned Trial Court noticed the objection
of limitation but deferred its consideration to the stage of evidence,
observing that the matter was at an initial stage and the issue could be
decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. However, the
impugned order does not indicate whether the documents relied upon
by the petitioners were examined, or whether the objection raised by
them was considered to be one which could be determined on the
existing record or required evidence. The rival submissions on the
respondent‟s alleged prior knowledge, and the material relied upon in
support thereof, have thus not received consideration in the manner
required while deciding the amendment application. This Court is not
expressing any opinion on the effect of the aforesaid documents or on
the question whether the proposed relief is barred by limitation. That
determination must be undertaken by the learned Trial Court in the
first instance.
32. The second objection concerns the alleged alteration in the
nature and character of the suit. The suit, as originally instituted, seeks
partition and injunctive relieves in respect of properties stated to have
been acquired by the parties‟ deceased father. By way of the proposed
amendment, the respondent seeks to implead petitioner no. 2 and
introduce a declaration that the documents dated 25.03.1998,
purportedly executed in her favour in respect of 75 sq. yds. of property
No. A-1302, are null and void. The petitioners contend that this relief
introduces a distinct and time-barred claim, whereas the respondent
maintains that by the amendment has become necessary to address the
claim of ownership set up by the petitioners in their written statement.
33. The fact that the proposed amendment concerns the same
property which forms part of the subject matter of the suit is a relevant
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 15 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
consideration, however, that circumstance, by itself, would not be
sufficient to determine whether the amendment is permissible. The
learned Trial court was required to examine whether the nature of the
original pleadings, the basis on which the respondent seeks proposed
declaration, and the effect of the amendment on the controversy
already raised in the suit. In particular, it was necessary to consider
whether the proposed relief is an elaboration of the existing dispute
concerning the parties‟ respective rights in the subject properties, or
whether it introduces a substantially distinct claim which alters the
nature and character of the suit. The observation in the impugned
order that petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and that the
issue of her alleged ownership was raised by petitioner no. 1 in his
written statement does not, in itself, answer this question.
34. The aforesaid aspects assume significance in view of the
principles laid down in Revajeetu Builders (Supra) , and Life
Insurance Corporation (Supra) . While the Court is ordinarily
required to adopt a liberal approach towards amendments which
facilitate the determination of the real controversy and avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, such discretion is to be exercised after
considering the nature of the proposed amendment, the prejudice, if
any, to the opposite party, and whether the amendment introduces a
claim which is barred by limitation or fundamentally changes the
nature of the suit. The impugned order does not reflect a consideration
of the rival contentions in the context of these parameters. The learned
Trial Court has, therefore, not adequately addressed the objections
which were central to the decision on the application.
35. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
application warrants fresh consideration by the learned Trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 16 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01
This Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the
objections raised by either side, including the question of limitation,
the effect of the documents relied upon by the petitioners, or whether
the proposed amendment changes the nature and character of the suit.
These are matters which must be considered by the learned Trial Court
upon an independent assessment of the pleadings, the proposed
amendments and the material placed before it. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 11.01.2024 is set aside. The application moved
by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC
is restored to its original number and shall be decided afresh, after
affording an opportunity of hearing both sides and by passing a
reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of
four weeks.
36. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the proposed amendment or on the rival claims of the
parties in the suit. All contentions are left open. The learned Trial
Court shall consider the application independently and shall not be
influenced by any observations made in the present judgment.
37. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
38. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ AS/os
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2554/2024 Page 17 of 17
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
10:19:01