IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5727 of 2025 DINESH KUAMR GURJAR AND OTHERS Versus JAGDEESH GURJAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ravendra Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seonimalwa, District Hoshangabad in RCSA No. 09/2022, whereby the application submitted by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by way of application under Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC, the petitioners have sought permission to incorporate the amendment, which has already been allowed by the court below on 08.09.2023. It is submitted that the amendment, which was allowed, was subsequent to the amendment, which has been carried out in the plaint by the plaintiffs as the number of plaintiffs has been increased. By way of amendment, only the consequent amendment to denote plaintiffs in plural form has been sought to be amended through the application filed for amendment in the written statement, which was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2023. The said application has been rejected on the ground that since on 08.09.2023 such amendment was allowed and the same has not been carried out for a long time of two years, therefore, the application cannot be allowed. It is submitted that the provisions of CPC are directory and not mandatory and the same cannot be used to curtail the rights of the litigants, more so, when the amendment is formal in nature and is not going to prejudice interest of either of the party and on the basis prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

4. As the court below had already allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC vide order dated 08.09.2023 and from a bare perusal of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P/3), it is evident that the amendment, which was sought, was only formal in nature to the extent of change the form of the plaintiffs from "Wadi to Wadigan", such amendment, in the opinion of this Court, is very formal in nature and is not going to prejudice anybody's right, if it is incorporated in the written statement and for allowing such amendment, presence of respondents/plaintiffs is not required. It is also apt to mention here that such powers are vested with the court as per Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC wherein the court has been empowered to extend the time to incorporate the amendment in the pleadings within such time, as prescribed by the court. The provisions CPC are directory and not mandatory as held by Hon. Apex Court as well as by this Court in catena of judgments. The rules are handmaid of justice and cannot be a tyrant in the administration of justice.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) thr. LRs v. P.

Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 has held as under :-

“9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).”

6. Considering the proposed amendment, which has been allowed, is formal in nature, the court below ought to have allowed such amendment, restricting the claim o