Vasudev Prasad Pachori vs Ganga Sharan Pachori Died Through Lrs Smt. Laxmi D/O Late Shri Gangasharan Pachori

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
1 MP-5015-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
MISC. PETITION No. 5015 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030215082026
VASUDEV PRASAD PACHORI
Versus
GANGA SHARAN PACHORI DIED THROUGH LRS SMT. LAXMI D/O
LATE SHRI GANGASHARAN PACHORI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 8.
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Delivered on: 27.10.2026
ORDER
1. The present miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 21.07.2026
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Sixth Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge,
Junior Division, District Morena, in RCSA No. 199/2019 [hereinafter
referred to as "Trial Court"], whereby the application preferred by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking amendment in the plaint has
been rejected.
2. The petitioner has also taken exception to the order dated
28.07.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the aforesaid Court in the same
civil suit, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under
Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to take a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
2 MP-5015-2026
document on record has been rejected.

3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land detailed
in paragraph 3 of the plaint (Annexure P/3) has been filed by the petitioner.
The respondents/defendants have filed their written statement disputing the
claim of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an application under
Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC (Annexure P/5) seeking
amendment in the plaint was filed. Another application under Order VII Rule
14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC (Annexure P/8) was filed for taking
on record the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar dated 31.01.1985. Both the
applications have been rejected by the learned trial Court vide the impugned
orders dated 21.07.2026 and 28.07.2026, respectively.
4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
application seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected by the learned
Trial Court on the ground that the proposed amendment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The said finding is stated to
be based upon the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement,
wherein they have relied upon the sale deed dated 09.10.1989 and contended
that the land situated on the southern side of the suit property had been sold
by the plaintiff himself.
5. Learned counsel submits that the boundaries of the land mentioned
in the sale deed dated 09.10.1989, a copy of which was brought on record
by the respondents themselves along with I.A. No. 14182/2026, were
subsequently amended vide correction deed dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
3 MP-5015-2026
P/7), registered on 26.09.2022.

6. It is submitted that, in the sale deed dated 09.10.1989, the land
situated on the northern side of the property in question was described as
belonging to Ganga Sharan, whereas, by the correction deed dated
23.09.2022, registered on 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/7), the boundaries were
amended to reflect the petitioner’s land on the relevant side.
7. It is thus argued by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the correction deed dated 23.09.2022, registered on 26.09.2022, was
already on record before the learned trial Court, but the same has not been
taken into consideration, resulting in rejection of the application for
amendment on an incorrect premise. He submits that, at this stage, the
plaintiff's evidence is yet to commence and, if the proposed amendment is
allowed, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties.
8. Insofar as the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule
14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC by the learned trial Court vide the
impugned order dated 28.07.2026 is concerned, it is argued that the same has
also been rejected illegally on the ground that the document sought to be
brought on record runs contrary to the averments made by the
petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint.
9. He further submits that the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the
plaint that the suit land was received by him from his ancestor, whereas the
order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, which is sought to be brought on
record as an additional document, relates to the claim of bhumiswami rights
on the basis of possession of the petitioner and his sister. He, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
4 MP-5015-2026
submits that there is no inconsistency between the averments made in the

plaint and the document sought to be brought on record.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that both the impugned orders warrant interference by
this Court.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
Shri Goyal supports the impugned orders and submits that the suit was
instituted by the petitioner in the year 2019. During the pendency of the suit,
and even after filing of the written statement by the defendants, the petitioner
got the correction deed in respect of the suit land executed. It is contended
that, by way of the proposed amendment, the entire factual fabric of the case
is sought to be altered. The location and boundaries of the suit land and the
defendants’ land are sought to be interchanged, thereby causing serious
prejudice to the defendants.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court, while
rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC vide order
dated 28.07.2026, has taken note of the conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff,
particularly the fact that the petitioner has not led evidence since 04.07.2022,
i.e., for a period of about four years. It is contended that, in the interregnum,
the petitioner has manipulated the documents and is now seeking, under the
garb of amendment, to introduce a plaint containing entirely new and
conflicting averments, which is impermissible in law.
13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira and Others,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
5 MP-5015-2026
(2024) 3 SCC 705. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Manoj

Jain v. Suman Goyal, 2014 (4) MPLJ 143, particularly paragraph 10 thereof,
to contend that the factual fabric of the pleadings cannot be permitted to be
altered under the garb of an amendment.
14. Shri Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by
drawing the attention of this Court to the map appended to the plaint,
submits that, if the proposed amendment is allowed, the land initially shown
on the northern side would shift to the southern side, and the land shown on
the southern side would shift to the northern side, thereby substantially
altering the factual position and demolishing the entire defence set up by the
respondents.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. The first question which arises for consideration is that whether the
learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application preferred by the
petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment in the
plaint.
17. The principles governing amendment of pleadings have been laid
down by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited , (2022) 16 SCC 1. The conclusions drawn by the
Apex Court in paragraph 71 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow:

"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
6 MP-5015-2026
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
7 MP-5015-2026
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]


18. In Manoj Jain v. Smt. Suman Goyal , 2014 (4) MPLJ 143 , this
Court considered a proposed amendment involving changes in the
description, dimensions and measurements of the suit property and the
consequential alteration of the map. The Court observed that the proposed
amendment sought to change the factual fabric of the suit by introducing a
new set of facts. The relevant paras in Manoj Jain (supra) are reproduced
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
8 MP-5015-2026
herein as under: -

"10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court
is of the view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed
for more than one reason. Admittedly, by the proposed
amendment through second application under Order VI, Rule
17 of Civil Procedure Code, the entire para 2 of the existing
plaint is sought to be deleted and new para 2 to be
substituted, wherein description of length, width and
dimensions are changed. The map sought to be produced
under Order VII, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code is
materially different from the map attached to the plaint. Such
amendments are sought to be brought on record at the stage
when issues have been framed. Plaintiff has already filed
affidavits under Order XVIII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code
of her three witnesses in lieu of examination-in-chief. There
is no disclosure of the fact as to why the averments as
proposed in new para 2 could not be brought on record either
at the time of presentation of suit or later on before the trial
began. There is also no disclosure as regards dismissal of
earlier application under Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil
Procedure Code by the trial Court on 9-1-2013. These
aspects assume importance and need to be addressed while
the Court exercises its jurisdiction under Order VI, Rule 17
of Civil Procedure Code in the light of the proviso appended
to Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code by the
amendment Act in 2002. The proposed amendments
definitely are sought to be brought on record after the
commencement of trial. As such, the trial Court was obliged
to address upon jurisdictional facts as contemplated in
proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. That
has not been done."
11. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is considered
apposite to state that in a given situation of facts where trial
has commenced and an application under Order VI, Rule 17
of Civil Procedure Code is filed by a party seeking
amendment in the pleadings, the trial Court must address
upon the issue as regards existence of jurisdictional facts as
embodied in proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure
Code and only after recording its satisfaction trial Court shall
move further to decide the application on merits.
12. Neither such facts are stated in the application nor have
been addressed upon by the trial Court. Hence, the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner
have force of law and, therefore, are sustained. Accordingly,
writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order of the trial
Court is set aside.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
9 MP-5015-2026
19. In the present case, the proposed amendment is required to be

considered in the light of the aforesaid principles. The petitioner relies upon
the correction deed registered on 26.09.2022 and submits that the evidence
of the plaintiff has not commenced. However, the objection raised by the
respondents is not confined merely to delay. Their specific contention is that
the proposed amendment would materially alter the fundamental character of
the suit, the description and location of the properties and would affect the
defence already taken in the written statement and the respondents' defence
taken in the written statement filed would be lost.
20. On consideration of the pleadings and the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the proposed
amendment would bring about a material change in the factual foundation of
the plaint with regard to the description and location of the properties in
dispute, specifically when the said amendment has been introduced after the
trial has commenced in the suit. Such a change is likely to prejudice the
defence of the respondents. The fact that the correction deed is already on
record does not, by itself, justify permitting an amendment which would
materially alter the factual foundation of the suit and affect the rights of
the opposite party by altering fundamental character of the suit. The
principles laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) , read
with the decision in Manoj Jain (supra), do not warrant interference with the
discretion exercised by the trial Court in rejecting the application under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
21. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
10 MP-5015-2026
dated 21.07.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule

17 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The said order deserves to be affirmed.
22. So far as the order dated 28.07.2026 rejecting the application under
Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC is concerned, the
petitioner seeks to bring on record the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar
dated 31.01.1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
document is relevant to the controversy involved in the suit and relates to the
claim regarding bhumiswami rights on the basis of possession of the
petitioner and his sister.
23. Considering the nature of the document sought to be produced and
the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the document
deserves to be taken on record so that the same may be considered by the
Trial Court in accordance with law. The question of taking a document on
record is distinct from the question of proof of its contents and its evidentiary
value. Taking the document on record shall not, by itself, amount to proof of
its contents or confer any right upon the petitioner. Its admissibility, proof
and evidentiary value shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance
with law.
24. Consequently, the order dated 28.07.2026 rejecting the application
under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC is set aside.
The said application is allowed and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar
shall be taken on record, subject to proof and admissibility in accordance
with law.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is partly allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32913
11 MP-5015-2026
The order dated 21.07.2026 rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17

read with Section 151 of the CPC is affirmed, whereas the order dated
28.07.2026 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with
Section 151 of the CPC is set aside and the said application stands allowed.
26. The Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
The present miscellaneous petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
27. Pending application(s), if any stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
12:39:15 PM