MP HC Upholds Amendment Adding “Impersonated Document” To Sale-Deed Challenge, As Plaint Already Pleaded Fraud And Forgery

The plaintiffs brought a civil suit challenging sale deeds dated 11 and 14 February 2011, alleging, among other things, that they were forged and fabricated.

During the suit, they sought to amend the plaint by inserting the words “Impersonated Document” at various places referring to the sale deeds.

The petitioner, a defendant, challenged the order concerning that amendment under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that it withdrew an admission, altered the relief and changed the nature of the suit.

The judgment contains an internal inconsistency: paragraph 1 describes the trial court as having rejected the amendment application, while the court’s reasoning and operative order treat the amendment as having been allowed.

The High Court noted that the suit was at an initial stage and plaintiffs’ evidence had not commenced.

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires amendments necessary to determine the real controversy to be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice.

Relying on *Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another*, (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court noted that amendments are generally allowed unless, among other circumstances, they introduce a time-barred claim, change the nature of the suit, are mala fide, or deprive the other side of a valid defence; amendments before trial should be approached liberally where the opposing party can meet the amended case.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction permits interference where the impugned order suffers from palpable illegality or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the plaint already alleged in paragraph 9 that the sale deeds were executed by fraud and were forged and fabricated.

It therefore treated the proposed phrase “Impersonated Document” as an elaboration of existing pleadings, not as a new case, a change in the suit’s nature or relief, or withdrawal of an admission.

Because the suit remained at an initial stage and evidence had not commenced, and the petitioner could respond through consequential amendments to the written statement, the amendment did not justify supervisory interference.

It reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek consequential amendments to the written statement, if advised; any pending applications were closed.