IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 857 of 2024 BRIHAMDUTTA ALIAS BANTI VYAS AND OTHERS Versus CHANCHAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

"It is humbly prayed that petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the Annexure P-1, further application under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. may kindly be allowed. Any other relief may kindly be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC . It is also submitted that the mutation application which has earlier been allowed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners by the order Chief Municipal Officer, Municipality, Gohad. That order has been challenged before the Collector, Gohad. Since this development has been taken after the starting of trial, therefore the application was not belated, but trial Court only on the ground of delay has Signature Not Verified dismissed the applications, while the proposed amendment is relevant for the just decision of this case. Keeping in view the relevancy and considering the cause of delay, the applications ought to be allowed.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer on the ground that the proposed amendment as well as the documents are not relevant and not required for a just decision of the case. Moreover, the order of Collector was passed on 28.11.2022, while the application Annexure P/4 under Order 6 Rule 17 has been filed not before 31.01.2024. No cause for such delay has been mentioned in the applications; therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the applications are filed with inordinate delay and, therefore, rightly rejected the applications.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the record shows that the order of Collector, Bhind in Case No.005/C-144/2022-23 was passed on 28.01.2022, while the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC have been filed on 31.01.2024. But, no explanation as regards the delay has been assigned in the applications; these applications have been filed at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, that is after the initiation of trial. The provisions of Order 6 and 17 of CPC is as follows:-

"17. Amendment pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, Signature Not Verified the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

6. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2022 SC 4256 , in para 70 has held as under:-

“70.Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for d