Court permitted amendments in pleadings after trial commenced, finding no prejudice to the defendant and emphasizing necessity for determining real questions in controversy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT th ON THE 14 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4284 of 2025 DR. MUKESH SHRIVASTAVA Versus RAGHUNATH PATEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dushyant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure-P/11) passed by 29th Civil Judge Senior Division, Jabalpur in RCSA No.18/2015 whereby, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 has been allowed.

The challenge has been made to the order on the ground that such order of permitting amendment in the plaint could not have been passed by the learned Court below as the trial has already been commenced. The respondents did not show any due diligence in filing such an application at an earlier stage. The facts proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment were very much in knowledge of the respondents/plaintiffs from the beginning. It is further submitted that something which cannot be permitted directly cannot be allowed indirectly. It is further submitted that initially, an application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for taking certain Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA documents on record which was allowed by the learned Court below and on the basis of those documents, the respondents had tried to substitute some pleadings in regard to those documents. The petitioner has submitted that such course of action cannot be permitted because the documents ought not to have been taken on record by the learned Court below because there was no pleadings in respect of such documents but then to fill up the lacuna, the application for amendment has been filed to substitute the pleadings in respect of those documents. Therefore, the court has erred in law in allowing the said application.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the application for bringing certain documents on record was allowed by the learned Court below. In the impugned order the proposed amendment is in two parts. The first part of the application has not been accepted by the learned Court below. However, the second part of the amendment has been allowed by which the amendment has been sought by adding para-8(a). By that the plaintiffs have tried to explain the nature of the property being a joint family property and the partition which had already been taken place between the ancestors of the parties.

The Court has opined that such amendment does not change the nature of the suit and such facts proposed to be brought on record by way of amendment were came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 25.03.25 by way of an application dated 09.02.2025.

It is a trite law that the amendment after commencement of the trial is not allowed provided that such amendment falls within the proviso of Order Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA

6 Rule 17 of CPC which states that for the reasons to be recorded by the Court that proposed amendment, inspite due diligence, could not be brought on record and such amendment does not change the nature of the suit, application can be allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders and others in Civil Appeal No.5909/2022, vide order dated 01.09.2022, has held that all the amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real questions 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 later part of the Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

Taking guidance from the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case, it is seen that the amendment has been allowed by the Court below at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff has not yet been