Kamla Bai vs Smt. Rekha Bai

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33433
1 MP-4890-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4890 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030209742026
KAMLA BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. REKHA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
Shri Dilip Kumar Awasthi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
1. The present miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 06.07.2026 passed
by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tehsil Aron, District Guna, in RCSA
No. 42/2021, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), seeking amendment in the plaint, has
been rejected.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33433
2 MP-4890-2026
land was filed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2/defendants. Upon being

noticed, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement disputing
the claim of the petitioners and also filed a counterclaim in respect of the suit
land. Though the petitioners also filed their written statement to the
counterclaim, the same is on record. However, during the pendency of the
trial, at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence, an application under Order VI Rule
17 read with Section 151 of the CPC was preferred by the petitioners seeking
amendment in the plaint. In view of the stand taken in the counterclaim, the
petitioners also sought to incorporate averments pertaining to the alleged
illegal construction of a boundary wall and their alleged dispossession from
the suit land. However, the learned trial Court rejected the said application on
the ground that since the counterclaim had been filed in the year 2021, no
plausible explanation had been furnished by the petitioners to indicate due
diligence or explain the delay in filing the application for amendment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
admittedly, there has been some delay on the part of the petitioners in filing
the questioned application. However, having regard to the stage of the suit,
i.e., plaintiff's evidence, and taking into consideration the fact that the
learned trial Court has not rejected the questioned application on the ground
that the proposed amendment is likely to prejudice the defence already taken
by the respondents, the application could be allowed by imposing reasonable
costs.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
and 2 supports the order impugned in the petition and submits that the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33433
3 MP-4890-2026
passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any

interference by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The law relating to amendment of 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, as follows:
"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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33433
4 MP-4890-2026
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.
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 in hand are examined, it is seen that
indeed there is delay on the part of the petitioners in filing their questioned
application. However, the fact remains that the Apex Court in the case of
Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) has held that mere delay in filing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33433
5 MP-4890-2026
the questioned application may not be a ground for rejecting the application

seeking amendment, unless it is established that the valid defence taken by
the defendants is sought to be taken away or that prejudice is likely to be
caused to the other side. In the instant case, neither the learned trial Court in
the order impugned nor learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and
2 has been able to indicate as to what prejudice would be caused to them in
the event the questioned application is allowed.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for amendment
filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be allowed. However, at the same time, the
defendants are entitled to reasonable costs. Accordingly, the application for
amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the
defendants. Payment of the aforesaid costs shall be a condition precedent for
carrying out the amendment. Consequently, the order passed by the learned
trial Court is set aside in the aforesaid terms. Liberty is reserved in favour of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to seek consequential amendment in their written
statement/counterclaim, if so advised.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM