Belated amendments drastically altering a defence from succession to oral gift warrant rejection after evidence.

The petitioners were opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in Succession Certificate Case No. 01 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge, Garhwa.

The succession-certificate application was filed on 03.03.2022, and the petitioners filed their written statement on 14.12.2023, claiming the disputed property by succession from Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi, without referring to any gift or Hibba.

After the evidence of the applicants in the succession case had concluded and part of the opposite parties’ evidence had been recorded, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 27.04.2026, seeking to introduce a new plea that Nazma Khatun @ Nagina Bibi had orally gifted the property to them on 15.10.2016.

The Principal District Judge, Garhwa rejected the amendment application by order dated 13.05.2026, holding that it would withdraw the petitioners’ earlier position and fundamentally alter the nature of their defence.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, under which amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy may ordinarily be allowed, subject to the amendment not causing injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.

Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in 2022 (4) JLJR (SC) 178, the Court recognised that necessary amendments should be permitted where they do not prejudice the other side.

It further relied on Pradeep Singhvi v. Heero Dhankani, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 432, for the principle that an amendment which drastically alters the nature of the defence ought not to be allowed.

The Court also exercised its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which does not justify interference merely because another view on an interlocutory procedural order may be possible.

The Court held that the proposed amendment was not merely explanatory or clarificatory.

The petitioners’ original written statement asserted that they had inherited the property by succession, whereas the proposed amendment sought to establish an entirely different basis of title—as donees under an oral Hibba allegedly made in 2016.

The amendment was sought only after the applicants’ evidence had concluded and part of the opposite parties’ evidence had been recorded.

Introducing the new plea at that stage would alter the foundation of the petitioners’ defence, require the opposing parties to meet a substantially different case, and cause prejudice and surprise.

Applying the principle in Pradeep Singhvi, the Court found that the amendment could not be treated as one necessary to determine the controversy without causing injustice.

Consequently, the Principal District Judge’s refusal to permit the amendment was neither illegal nor improper, and no ground for interference under Article 227 was established.

It held that the proposed amendment, sought after substantial progress in the proceedings, would drastically change the petitioners’ case from succession to title as donees and would prejudice the opposite parties.

The order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Garhwa was therefore upheld, and C.M.P. No. 607 of 2026 was dismissed as meritless.

The connected interlocutory applications were disposed of as infructuous.

Separately, I.A. No. 12295 of 2026 was allowed, and the name of deceased opposite party no. 3 was directed to be deleted and the remaining parties renumbered in the cause title.