Amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and avoiding multiplicity of litigation, provided the other party can be adequately compensated, and the amendment does not cause irreparable prejudice or fundamentally alter the suit.

ORDER :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff laying a challenge to the order dated 28.01.2026 (Annx.7) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Udaipur in Civil Regular Suit No. 125/2022 (C.I.S. No. 1320/2024) titled as ‘Gulab Singh & Anr. vs. Bhagwati Kunwar’ whereby, applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 27.11.2025 and 14.01.2026 seeking amendment of the plaint, have been rejected.

2. The facts, in short, are that a civil suit originally filed by Gulab Singh and Man Singh; now continued solely by Man Singh as Gulab Singh has passed away. The plaintiff claims sole ownership of property of Devi Singh; asserting Kesar Bai (widow of predeceased son Jorawar Singh) had only maintenance rights and was never remain possession of any portion of the suit property. It was submitted that Kesar Bai had earlier filed a suit on 13.01.1975, which was decided on the basis of compromise, wherein she presented an application in the suit stating that she had no rights in the suit property and had only maintenance rights against Gulab Singh. The compromise confirmed that she had no claim, but revenue records erroneously showed her name. It was further submitted that Kesar Bai allegedly executed gift deed dated 19.08.1982 in favour of Shambu Singh and later, sale deed dated 01.02.2007 in favor of respondent-defendant. The plaintiff has claimed the same as null and void. The respondent-defendant contended that Kesar Bai had possession, valid rights in suit property and that sale deed was lawful; however, disputes some family details and adoption claim. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment in suit to also challenge gift deed dated 19.08.1982 but the trial court rejected amendment applications, citing delay and change in suit’s nature vide order dated 28.01.2026, which is impugned herein.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of the amendment applications on the ground of delay is entirely unjustified. No prejudice is caused to the respondents, and substantial justice requires that the amendment should be allowed.

5. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. It merely seeks to declare the gift deed dated 19.08.1982 null and void, similar to the already challenged sale deed dated 01.02.2007 executed by the same person over the same property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that denial of the amendment would compel the petitioner to file a separate suit, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings, which is contrary to the settled principle that procedural law should facilitate, and not obstruct, justice.

7. It is contended that prior litigation and compromise, including Kesar Bai’s renunciation of rights and the dismissal of Shambu Singh’s suit, underscore the necessity of allowing the amendment to conclusively resolve the dispute. The gift deed has already been referenced in the plaint and the proposed amendment is merely consequential and clarificatory, causing no injustice to the respondents.

8. It is also submitted that the respondent-defendant herself has admitted the execution of the gift deed. Therefore, the subsequent sale deed by the same person is invalid, further reinforcing the necessity of the amendment.

9. It is contended that the trial court adopted an unduly hyper- technical app