Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 should be allowed if they assist in resolving the real issues without altering the fundamental nature of the suit or causing prejudice to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. Since the order challenged in both writ petitions arises from the same cause of action and involves similar issues, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10225 of 2024 is the original defendant No. 66, whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10422 of 2024 are defendants Nos. 16 and 17 in the suit. The challenge in both the petitions is to the order dated 10 July 2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The impugned order allows an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to incorporate averments regarding the creation of lease rights by the defendants, a prayer for a declaration that the lease agreements executed in favor of the newly added defendants are not binding on the plaintiff's share in the suit property and permits impleadment of the lessees as defendants.

3. In December 2021, respondent No.1-original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 2040 of 2021 for partition and separate possession, cancellation of sale deeds, and a declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 5 to 14 are not binding on the plaintiff’s share. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that an agreement to sell executed by defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 5 to 14 in favor of defendant No. 67 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share. Additionally, the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property and from creating third-party rights. The properties in question are described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint.

4. According to the plaintiff, the suit lands are ancestral properties that remain undivided, and the plaintiff asserts an undivided common share in all the properties. The plaintiff contends that defendant Nos. 1 to 15 have alienated parts of the suit properties through sale deeds and agreements, which the plaintiff claims are not binding on the plaintiff’s undivided share. It is further asserted that the plaintiff has a 1/5th undivided share in the suit property, which is protected under the law governing co-parcenary rights in joint family properties.

5. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”), seeking to include additional averments that defendant No. 16, after purchasing a portion of the suit property admeasuring 2H 15.6R, illegally consolidated the land to extend it to 10H 44R. It is alleged that defendant No. 66 has constructed buildings on the consolidated property and executed various agreements, including lease agreements, in favor of defendant No. 68. The plaintiff further contends that the lease agreement executed in relation to the buildings constructed on Survey No. 65 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff’s share.

6. The plaintiff has also sought to amend the prayer clause of the plaint to incorporate a challenge to the lease deeds executed by defendant No. 66 in favour of defendant Nos. 68 to 79, seeking a declaration that these sale deeds are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff’s share. Additionally, the plaintiff has prayed for the inclusion of defendant Nos. 68 to 79 as parties to the suit, invoking the principle that all necessary parties whose interests are likely to be affected by the adjudication must be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

7. The petitioners opposed the application, contending that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties, as mandated by Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. They contended that the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. It was further contended that the proposed amendment does not pertain to any subsequent development in the suit but seeks to alter the original nature and scope of the litigation. The petitioners emphasized that the proposed def