Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVI KANTA UPPAL – Appellant
Versus
MRS. USHA KAKAAN & ORS. – Respondent
CS(OS)-211/2023
Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed before trial to avoid multiplicity, provided it does not cause irreparable prejudice or alter the fundamental character of the suit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Provise not applicable as trial not commenced - Liberal approach - Courts to allow amendment necessary for determining real questions in controversy, unless causing irreparable prejudice or introducing time-barred claim or changing nature of suit - Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar amendment in existing suit. (Paras 15-18, 21-22)
(B) Amendment - When permissible - Proposed amendment challenging a will disclosed by defendants in written statement, impleading legal heirs of deceased co-owner and the Sub-Registrar, and adding reliefs of cancellation, partition, and possession - Such amendment arises from same transactions and is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Does not change fundamental character of suit - Prejudice can be compensated by costs and opportunity to file amended written statement. (Paras 19-24) Facts: The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that a relinquishment deed dated 06.12.2022 executed by her in favour of the defendants was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. After the defendants filed their written statement placing reliance on an alleged will dated 24.03.1994 purportedly executed by the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge the will, implead the legal heirs of her deceased sister and the Sub-Registrar, and seek additional reliefs including declaration, cancellation, partition, and possession. The defendants opposed the amendment on grounds of prior knowledge, change in nature of suit, and that the amendment was mala fide and would cause prejudice. Findings: The court held that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication of the disputes and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The proposed amendments did not introduce a wholly unrelated cause of action or alter the fundamental character of the litigation. The defendants' objections regarding prior knowledge and limitation raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved at this stage. No irreparable prejudice would be caused as the defendants could be compensated by costs and an opportunity to file an amended written statement. All rights and contentions were kept open.
Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to challenge the alleged will and add reliefs should be allowed despite the defendants' claim of the plaintiff's prior knowledge? (ii) Whether the amendment changes the nature of the suit? (iii) Whether the impleadment of additional parties is necessary?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the settled principles that amendments should be liberally allowed if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and do not cause irreparable prejudice. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply to amendment applications in an existing suit. Since the proposed amendment arises from the same set of transactions and would avoid multiplicity, it should be permitted.
Result: Application allowed. Amended plaint taken on record. Defendants granted 30 days to file amended written statement. All rival contentions kept open.
and Defendant No.4 is their daughter.
4. It is stated that the Suit Property belonged to the Plaintiff's mother,
Late Mrs. Lajwanti, who passed away on 03.08.2000, leaving behind three
legal heirs, namely, Late Mrs. Kala Sethi, Late Mr. Harish Chander Kakaan,
and the Plaintiff, each allegedly becoming entitled to undivided one-third
share in the Suit Property.
5. The Plaintiff claims that while she was in India, Defendants No.2 and
3 represented that the Defendant No.1 intended to execute a relinquishment
deed in favour of her children and requested the Plaintiff and her husband to
be present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate merely as witnesses. It is
stated that relying upon such representation, the Plaintiff furnished her
identity documents and accompanied the Defendants on 06.12.2022, when,
according to her, she was made to sign documents without being permitted
to read their contents. Subsequently, upon obtaining a certified copy of the
registered Relinquishment Deed on 01.02.2023, the Plaintiff discovered that
she had been shown as a joint releasor and had purportedly relinquished her
one-third share in the Suit Property in favour of Defendants No.2 to 4. Thus
alleging that the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was procured by
fraud and misrepresentation, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking
declaration and consequential mandatory and permanent injunctions.
6. In the present Application, the Plaintiff contends that after filing of
the Suit, certain new facts came to her knowledge which necessitate
amendment of the pleadings and consequential modification of the reliefs
claimed. It is further pleaded that the proposed amendments are within
limitation, do not alter the nature of the Suit, and are necessary for the
effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties without causing
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 211/2023 Page 2 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18.05.31
##PAGE3##prejudice to the Defendants.
7. By way of the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff seeks to implead the
legal heirs of her deceased sister, Late Mrs. Kala Sethi, as Defendants No. 5
to 8 on the ground that they inherited her one-third share in the estate of Late
Smt. Lajwanti and are necessary parties to the proceedings. The Plaintiff
also seeks impleadment of the concerned Sub-Registrar as Defendant No. 9,
before whom the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was registered.
The Plaintiff further seeks to amend the Suit by introducing additional
reliefs of cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022,
declaration that the alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 purportedly executed by
Late Smt. Lajwanti is null and void; seeking partition, possession, and
consequential mandatory and permanent injunctions. The necessity for such
amendments is stated to have arisen after the Plaintiff came to know of the
alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 only upon receipt of the Written Statement
filed by Defendants No. 1 to 4 on 17.05.2023. By way of the present
amendment, the Plaintiff proposes to incorporate detailed pleadings alleging
that the said Will dated 24.03.1994 is forged and fabricated, inter alia, on
the grounds that it was never disclosed during the lifetime of Late Smt.
Lajwanti, that she was illiterate in English whereas the Will dated
24.03.1994 is drafted in English, that the signatures appearing thereon are
suspicious, that the Will dated 24.03.1994 unjustifiably excludes the
daughters without assigning any reason, that it surfaced only after the
Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was challenged, and that the same
itself records that Late Smt. Lajwanti died intestate.
8. The Plaintiff also seeks consequential amendments to the factual
pleadings, valuation, cause of action, prayer clause and list of documents to
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 211/2023 Page 3 of 16
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:16.07.2026
18.05.31
##PAGE4##bring the subsequent facts and additional reliefs on record.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Defendant cont
