Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIVEK RUSIA
Mohammed Shafi – Appellant
Versus
Chand Khan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
1. Petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of order dated 10.1.2023 passed in R.C.S.A/2/2014 whereby application filed under order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement and application under order 8 rule 1 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file document has been rejected.
Facts of the case in short are as under :--
2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 being plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction for the land survey No.641 area 3.20 hectare and 643/1 area 2.06 situated at Village Matanakala, Tehsil & District Ujjain in order to challenge the validity of sale deed dated 13.1.2014 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 (petitioners) in favour of defendant No.4 (respondent No.3). The civil suit is pending since 2014. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was purchased by Kareem Khan who died in the year 1980. His wife Jawa Bai had no issue. Father of the plaintiff used to live in Kareem Khan's house.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Amendments to a plaint are permissible for effective resolution of disputes, but claims that are time-barred cannot be allowed, especially when they would divest the opposing party of accrued rights.
(1) When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of Evidence Act is necessary.
(2) Jurisdiction of Court has to be determine....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property, and the final order passed by the Revenue Officer is s....
Amendments to pleadings in civil suits must be granted if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not cause harm to the opposing party, affirming a liberal approach in such matters.
Amendments to pleadings are essential for effective adjudication and should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice to the other party.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article