Liberal amendment of pleadings is permissible before trial to include challenges to newly disclosed documents and avoid multiplicity.

The Plaintiff filed a suit challenging a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022, alleging it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation by her relatives (the Defendants) to deprive her of a one-third share in the property ‘A-72, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi’

After the Defendants filed their written statement disclosing a previously unknown Will of the original owner (Late Mrs. Lajwanti) dated 24.03.1994, the Plaintiff filed the present application (I.A. 32434/2024) under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC

The Plaintiff seeks to: (i) challenge the newly disclosed Will as forged; (ii) add reliefs for partition, possession, and cancellation; and (iii) implead the legal heirs of her deceased sister and the Sub-Registrar as necessary parties

The Defendants opposed the amendment, claiming the Plaintiff had prior knowledge of the Will and that the amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the suit

1. Whether the proposed amendments to the Plaint are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether they change the fundamental character of the suit

2. Whether the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is applicable to an amendment application filed within an existing suit

3. Whether the impleadment of additional parties (legal heirs and the Sub-Registrar) is necessary for a comprehensive adjudication of the title dispute

Court primarily applied Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which mandates that all amendments necessary for determining the "real questions in controversy" shall be allowed, particularly if sought before the commencement of trial

Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad Ors. (2023) regarding the liberal approach to amendments to avoid injustice

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022), which established that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar amendments in an existing suit and that delay or additional pleadings do not constitute "prejudice" if the same can be compensated by costs

The Court observed that since issues have not yet been framed, the restrictive proviso of Order VI Rule 17 does not apply

The court noted that the challenge to the Will and the subsequent relief of partition arose directly from the Defendants’ own defense in their Written Statement

It rejected the Defendants' argument regarding the Plaintiff’s prior knowledge of the Will, noting that a stray remark in a previous order was not conclusive proof of such knowledge

Applying the Sanjeev Builders precedent, the Court held that the amendment does not introduce a "wholly unrelated" cause of action but rather streamlines the dispute regarding the title and succession of the same Suit Property

Furthermore, adding the legal heirs was deemed proper to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings

The Court directed the amended Plaint to be taken on record and granted the Defendants 30 days to file an amended Written Statement. All objections regarding limitation and the genuineness of the Will were kept open for the trial stage. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 17.08.2026