Sh. Shishupal Chauhan & Anr. vs Sh. Ram Kumar Tyagi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010204632021
+ CS(OS) 307/2021, Crl.M.A. 6313/2022 and IA Nos.8162/2021,

16788/2021,
SH. SHISHUPAL CHAUHAN & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Aviral Jain, Adv.
versus
SH. RAM KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran
Khan and Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Advs.
for D-1 (through v/c)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral )


I.A. 14291/2025 - U/O VI RULE 17 FOR AMENDMENT OF
PLEADINGS

1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC seeking
amendment to the plaint.
2. The captioned suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeing recovery of the
amount allegedly paid for a contract dated 29.08.2019 entered into between
the plaintiffs, defendant no.4 and some other persons in respect of sale of
land ad measuring 43730 square yards comprising in Khasra No . 44/ 4 , 5 ,
6/ 1 , 6/ 2 , 7, 45/1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 and 10 , situated in the revenue estate of
Burari, Delhi 110084 for a total consideration of Rs . 63 , 69 , 71 , 180 / (Rs .
- -
CS(OS) 307/2021 Page 1 of 4



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:09:57

Sixty Three Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Seventy Thousand and one hundred
eighty Only ).
3. The earnest money purported to be paid by the purchasers was to
the tune of Rs.5,00,50,000/-.
4. The suit as initially filed was for the recovery and restitution of the
aforesaid earnest money of Rs. 5,00,50,000/-. By way of the proposed
amendment it is sought to be brought out that the plaintiffs/ purchasers were
earmarked as having only 55% share in the land proposed to be purchased.
Consequently, the amendment application has been filed primarily to
confine the claim of the plaintiffs to the extent of their shares. Thus, the
amount sought to be recovered has been reduced from Rs.5,00,50,000/- to
Rs. 2,75,27,500/-.
5. Considering the nature of the amendment sought, this Court finds no
impediment in allowing the present application. However, it cannot be lost
sight of that the present application suffers from the latches inasmuch as the
present suit was filed in year 2021.
6. Previously, IA. 12924/2022 which came to be filed by the plaintiffs
for the amendment of the suit which came to be eventually allowed. There is
no reason why the plaintiffs could not have acted with greater diligence and
made these amendments at an earlier point of time.
7. Reference is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC v.
Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd . , (2022) 16 SCC 1 , wherein it has been observed
as under:-
“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent
CS(OS) 307/2021 Page 2 of 4



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:09:57

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)…..”

8. Considering that the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the
defendants and is in the interest of a proper and complete adjudication of the
matter, the same is allowed. However, the same would be subject to cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
9. The application is allowed in the above terms. Let the amended plaint
be taken on record.
CS(OS) 307/2021
10. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for further proceedings on the
CS(OS) 307/2021 Page 3 of 4



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:09:57

16.09.2026, the date already fixed.

SACHIN DATTA, J
at/ka
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/
CS(OS) 307/2021 Page 4 of 4



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.09.2026
19:09:57