The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, emphasizing the limitations on amendments to pleadings and the need to avoid causing injustice to the other party.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

In this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legal propriety of the order dated 7-02-2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2009 by the learned District Judge, Jabalpur whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for brevity 'the CPC'] seeking amendment has been rejected.

2. The factual assertions as would unveil, are that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 8-A/2012 (New) on 01-06-2009 against the respondent No. 1 for declaration that the respondent No. 1 should not dispossess the petitioner from the disputed property and also for permanent injunction that the respondent No. 1 should not transfer the disputed property to anyone-else nor damage the property in any way. The respondent No. 1 also filed a Civil Suit No. 4-A/2009 on 25-06-2009 for permanent injunction and mesne profit against the petitioner. Both the suits were ordered to be consolidated for analogous hearing.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff has pleaded that he is the brother of the respondent No. 1 and was residing peacefully along with his family over a part of the disputed property-bearing House No. 1411 (new)/796(old), Napier Town, Dayanand Saraswati Ward, Dr. Barad Road, Jabalpur ad-measuring 3043.2 sq.ft. since 1966. As the respondent No. 1 is not having her own family, therefore, she was living with the petitioner's family in the disputed property and the petitioner being the real brother was taking care of the respondent No. 1. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 had expressed her desire that since she is not having any family of her own, therefore, she proposed to transfer the disputed property to the petitioner and in the remaining portion she will make a Trust in the memory of her father from the consideration of the disputed property agreed to be sold to the petitioner.

It is pleaded in the plaint that after some time the respondent No. 1 started creating troubles and endeavoured to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed property with the help of antisocial elements, who tried to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed property and had damaged the property for which the petitioner had lodged a police report for providing security to him and his family. In this factual backdrop the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and grant of injunction, as have been stated in the preceding paras.

4. During the pendency of the civil suit the respondent No. 1 has sold the suit property through a registered sale-deed, dated 03-09-2010 to the respondents No. 2 and 3 which was registered on 04-10-2010. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the petitioner had prayed for a relief of declaration and thereafter for grant of injunction by way of an amendment which was allowed on 04-10-2010 that the respondent No. 1 had no title to sell the disputed property and, therefore, she should be restrained from transferring the property in question. The same was added by subsequent amendment which was allowed on 04-10-2010. After execution of the sale-deed another application was filed seeking declaration that the sale-deed, dated 30-09-2010 registered on 04-10-2010 be declared null and void and not binding on the petitioner. It was further pleaded that the sale-deed would not confer any right in favour of the defendants/respondents No. 2 and 3 and permanent injunction against them. After filing of the suit on 25-06-2009 the petitioner had already filed two applications for amendment which were considered and allowed.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed present application for amendment seeking an amendment in respect of the relief for specific performance, for amendment as paras 7 and 9 in the pleadings and in the title regarding valuation of the appeal for specific performance of the contract and also seeking relief that the defendant No. 1 be directed to execute the sale deed regarding t