Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
HIRDESH, J.
Narayan Singh Died through Legal Heirs Smt. Ramvati and Others – Appellants
Versus
Aatam Singh and Others – Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 9755 of 2024
Decided On : 17-12-2025
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 6 fu- 17 & fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vfèkfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 34 & vihy esa okni= dk la'kks/ku & çLrkfor la'kksèku esa voyafcr leLr rkfRod rF; okn dh çLrqfr ds le; oknh dks igys ls Kkr Fks & oknh dk vkosnu dksbZ uohu ;k vçR;kf'kr rF; crkus ds ctk;] lkjr% vfHkopuksa dh deh iwjh djus dk ç;kl gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us okn Bhd gh [kkfjt fd;k] D;ksafd oknh vius vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa ltx ugha jgk vkSj fofgr vof/k ds Hkhrj foHkktu] ukekarj.k vFkok djkj ij vk{ksi djus esa vlQy jgk & vihyh çØe ij la'kks/ku U;k;ksfpr Bgjkus ds fy, fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34 dk voyac ugha ys ldrk & vihy U;k;ky; us la'kks/ku eatwj dj vkSj ekeyk çfrçsf"kr dj xaHkhj fof/kd xyrh dh & oknh dks ifjlhek ds dkuwuh mica/kksa ls cp fudyus ugha fn;k tk ldrk] u gh mls mldh iw.kZ tkudkjh vkSj lgefr ls fu"ikfnr laO;ogkjksa vkSj djkjksa ij vusd o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ vk{ksi djus fn;k tk ldrk gS & ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa la'kks/ku eatwj djuk fofèk ds fLFkj fl)karksa ds çfrdwy gS & ifjlhek] miefr vkSj vfHkopuksa dh xzkg~krk ds fLFkj fl)karksa dks ykxw dj vihy dk fofu'p;u xq.kkxq.k ij djus ds funs'k ds lkFk ekeyk çFke vihy U;k;ky; dks çsf"krA çdh.kZ vihy Øekad 2919 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 18-8-2025] çdh.kZ vihy Øekad 6361 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 11-9-2025] çdh.k vihy Øekad 4810 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 3-11-2025] ,vkbvkj 1990 ,eih 295] ¼2004½ 4 ,eih,pVh 493] ,vkbvkj 1961 iatkc ,oa gfj;k.kk 278] ,vkbvkj 1967 iatkc ,oa gfj;k.kk 501] 1962 ,llhlh v‚uykbu iatkc 190] ,vkbvkj 1977 mM+hlk 69] 2011 ,vkbvkj mM+hlk 844] ,vkbvkj 1960 ,llh 335] ,vkbvkj 1919 ykgkSj 63] ,vkbvkj 2006 fnYyh 226] f}rh; vihy Øekad 1341 lu~ 2005 fu.khZr fnukad 26-9-2014 ¼Xok-½] çdh.kZ vihy Øekad 79 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 21-1-2016 ¼Xok-½ rFkk çdh.kZ vihy Øekad 2682 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 23-11-2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 22 ls 24½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 6 fu- 17 i{kdkj la'kks/ku dh çfØ;k dk mi;ksx ifjlhek vkSj miefr ds fl)karksa ls cp fudyus ds fy, ugha dj ldrk & la'kks/ku ,sls rF;ksa dks iqj%LFkkfir djus ds fy, eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] t¨ okn dh çLrqfr ds le; oknh dks igys ls Kkr Fks & ,sls la'kks/ku eatwj djus ls ifjlhek dkuwuksa dk ç;kstu gh foQy g¨ tk,xk] tks flfoy fooknksa esa vafrerk vkSj fuf'prrk lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, vfHkdfYir gSaA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 41 fu- 23 & çfrçs"k.k dh 'kfä i{kdkj dks okn dh çLrqfr ds le; igys ls gh Kkr rF; iqj%LFkkfir djus vFkok ifjlhek ls cp fudyus nsus ds ç;kstukFkZ ekeyk çfrçsf"kr djuk vihyh vfèkdkfjrk dk nq:i;ksx gS & U;k;ky; ,sls la'kks/ku eatwj ugha dj ldrk ftuls i{kdkj fof/kd otZuksa ls cp fudyus ds fy, Kkr rF;ksa dks lQyrkiwoZd iqj%LFkkfir dj ldsA ¼iSjk 21½
¼4½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 34 & U;k;ky; dks rc vfHkopuksa dk la'kks/ku eatwj djus dh vuqefr nsrh gS tc okn dfri; ikfj.kkfed vuqrks"kksa dk nkok fd, fcuk lafLFkr fd;k x;k gks & rFkkfi] ;g mica/k ifjlhek] miefr vFkok igys ls Kkr rF;ksa ds ewyHkwr fl)karksa ij v/;kjksgh ugha gks ldrk çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls la'kks/ku eatwj fd, tkus ls dkuwuh otZu dh vkSj ifjlhek ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ dh vuqfpr vogsyuk gksrh gS D;ksafd oknh dks leLr lqlaxr rF;ksa dh iw.kZ tkudkjh 2004 ls Fkh vkSj mlus dkuwuh vof/k ds Hkhrj dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ugha dhA ¼iSjk 22½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 34 -- amendment of plaint in appeal -- all material facts relied upon in proposed amendment were already known to plaintiff at time of filing suit -- plaintiff’s application is essentially an attempt to fill lacuna in pleadings, rather than addressing any new or unforeseen facts -- trial Court rightly dismissed suit, as plaintiff had slept over his rights and failed to challenge partition, mutation or agreement within prescribed period -- plaintiff cannot rely on S. 34 of Specific Relief Act to justify amendment at appellate stage -- appellate Court committed grave legal error in allowing amendment and remanding matter -- plaintiff cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory provisions of limitation, nor can he be allowed to challenge transactions and agreements executed with his full knowledge and consent, after lapse of several years -- allowing amendment in such circumstances is contrary to settled principles of law -- matter remitted to first appellate Court with direction to decide appeal on merits, applying settled principles of limitation, acquiescence and admissibility of pleadings. Appeal No. 2919 of 2019 decided on 18.8.2025, Misc. Appeal No. 6361 of 2023 decided on 11.9.2025, Misc. Appeal No. 4810 of 2022 decided on 3.11. 2025, AIR 1990 MP 295, (2004) 4 MPHT 493, AIR 1961 P&H 278, AIR 1967 P&H 501, 1962 SCC Online Pun. 190, AIR 1977 Ori. 69, 2011 AIR Ori. 844, AIR 1960 SC 335, AIR 1919 Lah. 63, AIR 2006 Del. 226, Second Appeal No. 1341 of 2005 decided on 26.9.2014 (Gwl.), Misc. Appeal No. 79 of 2016 decided on 21.1.2016 (Gwl.) and Misc. Appeal No. 2682 of 2016 decided on 23.11.2017 (Jab.) referred to. [Paras 19 & 22 to 24]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- party cannot use process of amendment to circumvent principles of limitation and acquiescence -- amendment cannot be allowed to introduce facts that were already within knowledge of plaintiff at time of filing suit -- allowing such amendments would defeat the very purpose of limitation statutes, which are designed to ensure finality and certainty in civil disputes. [Paras 19 & 20]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 23 -- power of remand -- remanding matter for purpose of allowing party to introduce facts already known at time of filing suit, or to circumvent limitation, constitutes abuse of appellate jurisdiction -- Court cannot permit amendments that would effectively allow party to introduce known facts to circumvent legal bars. [Para 21]
(4) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 34 -- permits Court to allow amendment of pleadings if suit is instituted without claiming certain consequential reliefs -- however, this provision cannot override fundamental principles of limitation, acquiescence or previously known facts -- allowing of such amendment by first appellate Court, improperly disregards statutory bar and trial Court’s findings on limitation because plaintiff had complete knowledge of all relevant facts since 2004 and failed to initiate proceedings within statutory period. [Para 22]
ORDER :
1. This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants–defendants against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as the first appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 46/2022, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.1–plaintiff was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karera, District Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 63-A of 2019 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide the suit afresh after recording evidence of both parties on amended pleadings.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent No.1–plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Narayan Singh and others before the trial Court on the ground that the disputed land comprises half share of land bearing Survey No.538 admeasuring 2.15 hectare, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 24.06.1998 jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No.1. After purchase, names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were mutated in the revenue records and both were cultivating the disputed land. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 had neither title nor possession over the disputed land and had never remained in possession earlier. No notice of partition was served upon the plaintiff by the Court of Tehsildar and defendant No.1, in collusion with the Patwari and Tehsildar, managed to get his name mutated over the entire land. It was alleged that signatures of the plaintiff were obtained by playing fraud during partition proceedings under the pretext of KCC documents. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 sold the disputed land to defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 15.05.2018, pursuant to which defendant No.2 got his name mutated in the revenue records. It was also alleged that defendant No.1 had mortgaged the disputed land and obtained a loan and that defendant No.2 and his family members forcibly entered into possession and cultivation of the disputed land, which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit.
3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the entire sale consideration was paid by defendant No.1 alone and that he alone remained in possession of the disputed land. It was further pleaded that after execution of the sale deed, defendant No.2 is in possession of the disputed land. It was also pleaded that a consent agreement dated 12.05.2009 was executed by the plaintiff in presence of witnesses, wherein the loan of the bank was paid by defendant No.1 and the mortgaged tractor and machinery were handed over to the plaintiff, and in lieu thereof, the plaintiff gave consent for mutation of defendant No.1 over the disputed land, acknowledging that he had no right, title or interest therein. It was further pleaded that partition was carried out in accordance with law and with full knowledge of the plaintiff, but with an intention to take undue advantage, the plaintiff deliberately concealed the same. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed land, that no relief of possession was sought, and therefore the suit was not maintainable.
3.1 The trial Court framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the first appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. Defendant Nos
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be permitted even post-delay if they facilitate effective adjudication and do not cause injustice to the opposing party.
The appellate court upheld that plaintiffs' title validly established, and amendments to pleadings for possession did not change the suit's nature, ensuring compliance with statutory limitation.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
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
