Hanumant Sugar Private Limited vs S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
1 MP-360-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 13 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 360 of 2025
HANUMANT SUGAR PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
S.B.I. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manikant Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and correctness of the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the
learned 8th District Judge, Commercial Court, Bhopal in COMMS
No.25/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of
the plaint has been rejected.
2. The petitioner company, namely Hanumant Sugar Private Limited,
is engaged in the business of production of molasses and manufacturing
of sugar. The petitioner had obtained an insurance policy bearing No.
5840619-02 from the respondents for the period from 28.02.2019 to
27.02.2020 with a sum assured of Rs. 41,50,00,000/-. On 29.03.2019,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
2 MP-360-2025
due to a chemical reaction in the molasses tank, a portion of the bottom

of the tank burst, resulting in the outflow of approximately 3200 tons of
molasses, causing substantial loss to the petitioner company and damage
to the surrounding areas of the factory premises.
3. The petitioner immediately informed the respondent insurance
company and surveyors inspected the site on several occasions.
However, the surveyor attributed the incident to alleged construction
defects and patch repairs in the tank and opined that the loss was not
covered under the policy. The petitioner alleged that the claim
assessment was delayed and conducted in violation of the provisions of
the IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017, as
the claim was not settled within the prescribed time and was ultimately
rejected on erroneous grounds.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the petitioner filed COMMS
No. 25/2023 before the Commercial Court at Bhopal seeking
compensation under the insurance policy. During the course of
preparation of evidence, it was noticed that certain necessary pleadings
relating to the disputed insurance policy and insured instrument had
inadvertently not been incorporated in the plaint. Consequently, the
petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint.
5. The respondents opposed the said application. However, the learned
8th District Judge, Commercial Court, Bhopal, by order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
3 MP-360-2025
12.12.2024, rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the

matter had already been fixed for plaintiff’s evidence and therefore the
trial had commenced.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is
illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing amendment of
pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It is contended that the proposed amendment is merely clarificatory in
nature and relates to the insurance policy and the insured instrument
forming the basis of the suit. It is further submitted that the amendment
neither alters the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action
and therefore ought to have been allowed. It is further contended that
the matter was only at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and the witnesses
had not yet been examined or subjected to cross-examination. Hence, no
prejudice would have been caused to the defendants if the amendment
had been permitted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to the
rejection of the petitioner’s application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint. At
this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 16 of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015.
“16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application
to commercial disputes.—(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
4 MP-360-2025
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in

respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in
the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended
by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a
Specified Value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or
any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the
State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.’’
8. An amendment in pleading before a commercial court is
maintainable before the commencement of trial. Under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as applicable to commercial
disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, amendments can be
allowed at any stage of the proceedings. However, strict limitations
apply once the trial commences.
9. According to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
party can satisfy the court that in spite of "due diligence," the matter
could not have been raised earlier. In commercial disputes, the trial is
typically deemed to commence when the affidavit of evidence is filed or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
5 MP-360-2025
tendered, not merely when issues are framed. Under the Commercial

Courts Act, 2015, if a pleading is amended, the amendment must be
verified by an affidavit. There are some conditions when amendment
may be refused even before evidence commences: if it completely alters
the fundamental character of the suit or introduces a totally new cause of
action that is already barred by limitation.
10. In the present case, the Trial Court rejected the amendment
application mainly on the ground that the matter had already been fixed
for plaintiff’s evidence and therefore the trial had commenced. However,
the mere listing of the matter for plaintiff’s evidence cannot by itself be
treated as commencement of trial in the strict legal sense. The stage of
trial is generally understood to begin when evidence is actually tendered
by way of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and witnesses are
subjected to examination.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Baldev Singh
& Ors. Vs Manohar Singh & Anr 2006(2) RCR 265 law enunciated for
amendment of pleadings by Supreme Court is summed up as:-
"1. Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for
amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is
caused to the other side.
2. Wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court
to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and no
such terms as it appears to the court just and proper.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
6 MP-360-2025
3. Court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in

disposal of suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of
expeditiously.
4. Plea of limitation can be allowed to be raised by way of amendment in
written statement.
5. Powers of the Court are wide enough to permit amendment of the
written statement by incorporating an alternative plea of ownership in
the application for amendment of the written statement.
6. Even there were some admissions in the evidence as well as in the
written statement it was still open to the parties to explain the same by
way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement.
7. Be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is
shown to have been caused to the plaintiff.
8. An amendment of a plaint.
9. Courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of
written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to
operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case.
10. Inconsistent pleas can be raised by defendants in the written
statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of
plaint."
12. In the present case, the amendment sought by the petitioner
appears to be clarificatory in nature and relates to the insurance policy
and the insured instrument which constitute the foundation of the suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21543
7 MP-360-2025
The proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the suit nor

introduces a new cause of action. Moreover, the plaintiff had not yet
been subjected to cross-examination and therefore no serious prejudice
would be caused to the defendants if the amendment is permitted.
13. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting the amendment
application and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC in its proper perspective.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the
learned Commercial Court is set aside and the application filed by the
petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-03-2026
18:31:46