Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
HIMANSHU JOSHI
Kanchedilal – Appellant
Versus
Ganesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni, District Sehore in RCSA No.11/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.
2. The essential facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in relation to certain immovable property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. In the plaint, the petitioner set out the factual foundation upon which the reliefs were claimed.
3. The respondents/defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and asserting their own claims and defences. The written statement was filed approximately two years prior to the filing of the present amendment application.
4. During the pendency of the proceed
The court ruled that a liberal approach should be taken towards permitting amendments in pleadings, especially when crucial facts are omitted, and delay alone does not justify rejection if trial has ....
The court may permit amendments to pleadings during proceedings if necessary for justice and the determination of real issues, provided due diligence to raise them before trial can be established.
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Article 227 if they are necessary to resolve the real controversy, provided they do not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
The court upheld that amendments to a plaint after trial commencement require sufficient justification and diligence, which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Amendments to pleadings are generally allowable when they do not introduce new facts, do not cause injustice, and are based on existing claims, even if the trial has commenced.
Court affirmed that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be allowed at any stage to promote justice, provided they do not cause injustice to opposing parties.
Amendment in plaint – Delay in filing application for amendment by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting application.
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
