Hukumchand Garg vs Smt. Urmila Garg

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
1 MP-1522-2026
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. 1522 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030063392026
HUKUMCHAND GARG
Versus
SMT. URMILA GARG AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Mahesh Goyal- learned counsel for respondent.
ORDER
The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30-01-2026 passed
by Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sheopur (in short'' the trial Court'')
in Regular Civil Suit No.266-A of 2023, whereby the application preferred
by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking
amendment in the pleadings has been rejected.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a
suit for declaration of title over the lands as detailed in Paras 1 and 2
(Annexure P2) of the plaint has been filed, wherein, apart from the relief of
declaration, the orders passed by the revenue authorities on 08.01.2020 and
26.02.2018 are also under challenge, apart from the challenge to the sale
deed dated 04.02.2011. During the pendency of the suit, upon the filing of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
2 MP-1522-2026
the written statement by the defendant/respondent, the petitioner realized that

a certain portion of the suit land has been transferred in favour of the
respondent/ defendant by the wife of Nandlal, Smt. Puspabai, through a
registered sale deed. The petitioner intends to give up the relief pertaining to
the sale deed, as well as the relief of title with respect to remaining land, and
now intends to challenge the revenue orders passed by the revenue
authorities, for which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was
filed. The said application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide
the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 on the ground that, since the
application has been filed after the commencement of the trial, the aspect of
due diligence on the part of the petitioner in pleading the averments earlier is
lacking in the questioned application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 of
the CPC, and, therefore, no case for allowing the same is made out.
3. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that the learned Trial Court
erred in mechanically rejecting the questioned application seeking
amendment in the pleadings without considering its relevance. He submits
that, in view of the change in circumstances, that is, the stand taken by the
respondent/defendant in her written statement, the petitioner intends to give
up certain reliefs, for which the amendment is sought. He submits that the
plaintiff's evidence is yet to commence and no prejudice would be caused, as
the defendant would have every opportunity to amend the written statement
by seeking consequential amendment therein. Therefore, the learned Trial
Court erred in rejecting the questioned application.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
3 MP-1522-2026
defendant, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the petitioner

herein has repeatedly filed applications for amendment, thereby attempting
to change the very character of the suit. An earlier application under Order 6
Rule 17 of the CPC was filed, which has been placed on record along with
Document No.15503 of 2026, wherein extensive amendments were
permitted to the petitioner. Now, the amendment is again sought to be
incorporated in the pleadings. The learned Trial Court has taken into
consideration the applicability of the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of
the CPC, thereby rejecting the questioned application by assigning valid
reasons. He places reliance on the order passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Basavaraj v. Indira and Others, 2024 Supreme (SC) 170, with reference to
Para 9.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The scope of amendment 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, wherein it has been held as
under:-
"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
4 MP-1522-2026
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
pinpointedly 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 timebarred
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
5 MP-1522-2026
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]

7.The questioned application preferred by the petitioner has been
rejected by the learned Trial Court not on the ground that the same intends to
alter the character or nature of the suit or it is likely to prejudice the defence
set up by the respondent. The application has been rejected on the ground
that the aspect of due diligence in seeking the amendment has not been
pleaded in the questioned application.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant may be
correct in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Basavaraj (supra) to that extent. However, the Apex Court, in the case of
Akkiraju Panduranga Rao and Another vs. Gunlapally Ranga Rao, 2026 SCC
Online 805, has held that, while considering an application for amendment,
the relevance of the amendment sought is also required to be considered.
That apart, looking at the stage of the suit, the application filed by the
petitioner warranted liberal consideration in view of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra). The
petitioner herein, in view of the stand taken by the respondent in her WS,
intends to give up certain reliefs by way of questioned amendment.
9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendant has failed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32777
6 MP-1522-2026
to point out that any prejudice is likely to be caused to her in case the

amendment is allowed.
10. In view of above considerations, the learned Trial Court
committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the questioned application, and a
case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
30.01.2026 passed by learned Trial Court is set aside. The questioned
application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff
stands allowed. It shall be open to the respondent/defendant to seek
consequential amendment in Written Statement, if so advised.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. No
order as to costs.
12. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
MKB

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/28/2026
10:28:46 AM