ORDER

This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P/6) passed in RCSA 1000005/2015 by II Civil Judge (Senior Division), Satna rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for quashing of registered sale deed dated 12.03.2013. Copy of the plaint is available on record. In the plaint although there is reference of a Will dated 09.04.2010, but declaration is also not founded on the basis of the said Will. Although from the plaint averments it is clear that the plaintiff had five brothers and two sisters from whom one sister and two brothers of the plaintiff/petitioner namely Babu Yadav and Makkhan Yadav had died. The land in question claimed to be a self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff namely, late Achchelal Yadav. In the plaint it is alleged that after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the brother of defendant No.1 fabricated a forge Family Tree and got his name mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiff after coming to know about the said entry made in the revenue record, raised an objection before the Tahsildar but his objection was rejected. Defendant Nos. 3 and 10 also raised an objection on the basis of Will dated 09.04.2010 and claimed their title by virtue of the said Will but that objection was also rejected. An appeal against the order of rejection pending before the Sub Divisional Officer. Although the declaration of title was in the plaint, but the pleading with regard to the foundation of that declaration and acquiring right over the proper was not mentioned and from the averments made in the plaint, it can be inferred that on the basis of inheritance the petitioner/plaintiff sought declaration of title.

3. Although on 05.03.2024 the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking documents on record and that application was allowed taking the Will dated 09.04.2010 on record said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff late Achchelal Yadav. Thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint claiming declaration of title on the basis of Will dated 09.04.2010 saying that on the basis of said Will the plaintiff became the owner of the land in question and as such declaration be made accordingly. The application was opposed by the defendants mentioning therein that the application for amendment is filed belatedly and the Will is nothing but a fabricated document, which was fabricated later and no permission for amendment can be granted on the basis of the said Will because it changes the nature of the suit and will reopen the case again.

4. The trial court by the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 has rejected the application on the ground that the suit is of 2015 and Will is of 2010 but even then no pleading is made in the plaint with regard to the said Will, the suit has already commenced and fixed for recording evidence of plaintiff and now in 2024 an application for amendment is made without disclosing the reason for seeking that amendment at a later point of time. The trial court has found that the delay has not been explained. The Court has observed that the amendment application, if allowed, the same would change the nature of the suit because earlier the suit was based upon acquiring the title by inheritance and now on the basis of a Will it is being claimed. The trial court relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 3265 - Delhi Development Authority vs. S.S. Aggarwal & others in which the delay was not properly explained for moving an application for amendment and as such the court rejected the application.

5. I have perused the order passed by the trial court and also perused the plaint as well as the application f