Timely amendments in legal proceedings must adhere to procedural rules, disproportionality in delays can result in rejection.

Heard on: 26.08.2025 Delivered on: 09.10.2025 ORDER By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by 29th District Judge, Indore, in RCS-47-A/14 whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 1(3)

of the CPC for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

2. The suit has been instituted by respondent no.1/plaintiff for fulfillment of specific agreement under Order 7 Rule 1 in compliance with the Specific Performance Act against the Petitioner/defendant A.1 and respondents 2 to 3, and for declaring the sale deeds dated 20.12.2008 and 03.02.2007, executed and registered by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal and void. The issues in the case have been determined, the respondent No.1/plaintiff's evidence has been completed and the case was fixed for the examination of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI petitioner/defendant No.1. In the meantime, the petitioner/defendant no.1 filed two applications one under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC and another under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC to take additional documents along with reply and to amend the reply based on the new records. The subordinate court allowed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC and dismissed the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC vide the impugned order and hence the petitioner has filed this petition seeking permission for the amendment.

3. Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant no.1 argued that the current Officer-

In-Charge (Co-operative Inspector) appointed by Co-operative Department, after his appointment, investigated the institution's records. On 15.04.2025 he got the information through RTI that a First Information Report (FIR) had been filed in 2008 by the former liquidator, B.S. Patel, against respondents 2 &3 with regard to irregularities. It was further revealed that the cooperative department had issued a show-cause notice to the respondents under Section 53(2) of the MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 . This led to action against them under Section 53(1) of the Act. Resultantly, the board of management was dissolved on December 21, 2006, The chairman appealed the dissolution order, but the Joint deputy registrar of cooperative societies upheld the decision on May 11, 2007.

4. It is further contended that all the above documents Annexure-P/5 to P/8 were received by the petitioner on 15.05.2024 and on 16.05.2024, the petitioner filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the Subordinate Court. The application for taking the said documents on record was filed under Order 8 Rule 1 Sub-rule 3 CPC. The Subordinate Court accepted the application for taking the documents on record, however, without assigning any reason passed the impugned order Annexure-P/1 dismissing the petitioner's Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned trial Court has erroneously held that the documents in the light of which the amendment is sought by the defendant were in existence before the presentation of the post-suit. The said amendments have been sought by the defendant at the stage of evidence, the case is pending since 2008, however, the amendments, which are contrary to the earlier pleadings, have been sought after a lapse of 16 years.

5. In support of his contentions counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc reported as AIR 2006 SC 2832 and Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd., vs. Manoharlal reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212, wherein after analysing various citations, basic principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been held that the facts coming to knowledge of party concern