Shobharam Gurjar Through Power Of Attorney Ramchitara Singh vs Talfa Bai Gurjar Deceased Through Lrs Marayan Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
1 MP-5308-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5308 of 2026
SHOBHARAM GURJAR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
RAMCHITARA SINGH
Versus
TALFA BAI GURJAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS MARAYAN
SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K.Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman
Singh Bhadouriyia, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Tiwari - Advocate for legal heirs of deceased Talfa Bai
Gurjar, i.e., respondents No.1, 2 and 3/Caveators.
Respondent No.4 is proforma respondent.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - Government Advocate for respondent
No.5/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 04.08.2026 passed
by the Tenth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior (M.P.), in RCS-
A/393/2022, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant
for amendment in written statement has been rejected.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
2 MP-5308-2026
suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the

respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, wherein the defendant had filed his written
statement disputing the claim. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner
moved application for taking on record the documents pertaining to the
orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.181/2021 and W.P.No.226/2022. The
said documents were allowed to be taken on record. Thereafter, in order to
substantiate the pleadings pertaining to the documents, an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner,
which has been rejected by the learned trial Court only on the ground of
delay. It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the
reliance placed by the learned trial Court on the proviso appended to Rule 17
of Order 6 of CPC may not be the sole ground to reject the application for
amendment. The learned trial Court has not considered as to whether the
amendment sought for by the petitioner is necessary for adjudication of the
dispute between the parties or in case, the same is allowed at this stage, it is
likely to cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. He places reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of North Eastern Railway
Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs., 2008 (8) SCC
511, with reference to para 16, to contend that an amendment should be
refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if
the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause
him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. He submits that the
aforesaid contingency is not available in the case in hand, as only the
examination-in-chief of the plaintiff has been conducted. The plaintiff has an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
3 MP-5308-2026
opportunity to seek consequential amendment in the plaint and to lead further

evidence in the said regard.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of
plaintiff Talfa Bai Gurjar, i.e., respondents No.1 to 3, on caveat, submits that
the amendment sought by the petitioner is wholly unnecessary for the
adjudication of the dispute in question. It is argued by the learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/Caveator that there has been material
suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner in filing the written
statement. In the written statement, they have asserted that the suit land has
been sold by them through registered sale deed, but they have not disclosed
the names of persons to whom the land has been sold. That apart, it is argued
by the learned counsel appearing for the Caveater that the issues in the case
were framed on 13.08.2025, and the orders in the writ petitions, on the
strength of which amendment is sought by the petitioner, were filed by the
petitioner himself. The said fact was well within the knowledge of the
petitioner even at the time of filing of written statement and therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the
questioned application.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The Apex Court, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India
vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, has held as
under:-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
4 MP-5308-2026
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
5 MP-5308-2026
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]
7 . When the facts of the case are examined in the light of law as
propounded by the Apex Court in the case of LIC (supra), it is seen that the
amendment sought by the petitioner in the questioned application is in
furtherance and elaboration of the documents which has been allowed by the
learnt trial Court to be taken on record. The learned trial Court has not
rejected the questioned application on the ground that the same would cause
any prejudice to the plaintiff or on the ground as has been argued by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
6 MP-5308-2026
learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, and the rejection is only on the

ground that no reason has been explained by the petitioner in the questioned
application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for not
incorporating the aforesaid pleadings at the time of filing of written
statement. The said reasoning, in the given facts and circumstances of the
case, being not in conformity with the judgment by the Apex Court in the
case of LIC (supra), a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the
order dated 04.08.2026 is set aside. The questioned application for
amendment in written statement filed by the petitioner is allowed, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the plaintiffs/. It shall be open for the
plaintiffs to seek consequential amendments in their pleadings, if so advised.
On furnishing proof of payment of costs to the plaintiffs, the petitioner shall
be permitted to incorporate the amendment in the written statement.
8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to
3/Caveator points out that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is pending since the
year 2022 and the petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the suit
by taking adjournments. He submits that appropriate directions in the said
regard be also issued to the learned trial Court.
9. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3/Caveators, it is observed that
the learned trial Court shall make endeavours for expeditious disposal of the
suit and the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournments.
10. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26459
7 MP-5308-2026
11. Pending applications, if any, stand closed.

(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:30:58