IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 17 OF OCTOBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5741 of 2024 RAVIKANT TRIPATHI Versus BADRI PRASAD TRIPATHI DIED THROUGH LRS RAMKALI TRIPATHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.P. Shivhare - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER Assailing the order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P/5) by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the respondents was allowed, the present petition has been filed.

The case of the petitioner is that plaintiff/respondent has filed the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction with respect to the land bearing khasra nos.369, 370, 374, 375, 388, 389, 404, 405, 367, 405/1, 368/2, 375/1 at admeasuring area of 0.35, 6.34, 5.34, 1.38, 0.81, 0.570, 0.223, 2.32, 2.25, 0.551, 2.51, 0.365 total 12 kita land situated at village Beliya PH Rampur P.S.Amlai Tehsil Budhar District Shahdol (M.P.). During the pendency of civil suit, the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking some important incorporation in the written statement, which was allowed by the learned trial court.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI It is an admitted position that a civil suit is at the stage of plaintiff evidence. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was allowed by the learned trial court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not show that by allowing such an amendment application what prejudice has been caused to him as the civil suit is at the initial stage.

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of amendment in the plaint in the pending civil suit in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 has considered the plea of amendment and in para 70 has framed the following guidelines :

"70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed.

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment shou