MP HC Won’t Let Plaintiff Redraw Suit-Land Boundaries Mid-Trial, Finding It Would Alter the Case, but Allows 1985 Revenue Order on Record Subject to Proof

The petitioner-plaintiff, who had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in 2019, challenged two interlocutory orders of the Trial Court. The first rejected his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint concerning the description and location of the suit property. The proposed amendment relied on a correction deed registered in September 2022.

The second order rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to place on record a Naib Tehsildar’s order dated 31 January 1985, concerning a claim to bhumiswami rights based on possession.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real controversy, subject to avoiding injustice or prejudice; amendments are generally approached liberally, particularly before trial, but may be refused where they change the nature of the suit, introduce an entirely new case, or prejudice the other party by depriving it of a valid defence. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 requires the court, after commencement of trial, to be satisfied that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, a document may be received on record, but its production does not establish its contents or evidentiary value; admissibility and proof remain for the Trial Court to determine.

The proposed amendment did not merely correct a detail: the Court found that it would materially alter the plaint’s factual foundation concerning the description and location of the properties and was likely to prejudice the respondents’ defence. The fact that the correction deed was already on record did not justify that change, and the Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s refusal to amend.

By contrast, the Naib Tehsildar’s order was relevant to the controversy and could be placed on record without deciding whether its contents were proved or admissible. Those questions were left to the Trial Court.

The petition was partly allowed. The order rejecting the Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC application was set aside, and the Naib Tehsildar’s order was directed to be taken on record, subject to proof and admissibility in accordance with law. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit accordingly.