IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH nd ON THE 2 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6773 of 2025 SMT SANTOSHI Versus BHAROSI ADIVASI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Man Singh Jadon - Government Advocate for respondent No.5/State.

ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2 . The instant miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shivpuri, in RCS-A/122/2023, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been allowed and the respondent No.1 has been permitted to challenge the sale deed dated 27.01.2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the defendant in the year 2023. While deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated 30.01.2024, the factum of execution of the sale deed dated 27.01.2023 came to be knowledge of the plaintiff. Yet, the application seeking amendment to challenge the said sale deed was filed belatedly which has been allowed by the trial Court without adverting to the issue of delay on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in filing the said application. Accordingly, the order dated 08.10.2025 deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the application seeking amendment in the plaint filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff (Annexure P/5) indicates that it has been pleaded therein that the plaintiff had gained knowledge of the execution of the sale deed dated 27.01.2023 after filing of the suit and, since the evidence of the plaintiff had not yet commenced in the matter, the application for amendment seeking challenge to the sale deed dated 27.01.2023 was sought for.

6. The learned trial Court, while allowing the said application vide impugned order dated 08.10.2025, has taken into consideration the very material fact that the plaintiff's evidence had not yet commenced in the suit, and therefore the application for amendment has been allowed. The petitioner has been granted liberty to seek consequential amendment in their written statements.

7. On the issue of amendment in the pleadings recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindu) and Ors.

reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 816 has held as under:-

"11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings.

11.1 The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration. Gorakhpur v.

Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511 it was held as under:

"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil (AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC

166.]"

11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been o