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. 1972 of 2025 SMT. APARNA MISHRA AND OTHERS Versus KU. PARUL MISHRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aarish Hyder - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2025, passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur in M.J.C. Suc/117/2016, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner/ applicant for correction of the amount of the FDRs for which succession application has been filed, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of application, the petitioner has tried to correct the number/amount of the FDRs, which is wrongly mentioned in the main petition. However, it is admitted that in the amendment application column of Nominee is missing. But, it has been candidly admitted by the petitioner that it is not the correction which has been sought, that will remain the same in the original petition. However, only to the extent of entry of the amount of FDRs in the table, correction for entry No.1, i.e. Rs.11,79,816/- is required to be replaced by Rs.12,24,943/- and third entry of amount of Rs.17,478/- is required to be replaced by Rs.11,00,339/-. It has also been prayed that the account number for 3rd entry amounting to Rs.11,00,339/- has wrongly been placed in the original petition, which is required to be corrected.

3. It is observed by the court below that because now the evidence of the applicant is over, such amendment cannot be allowed at a belated stage. The Hon. Apex court and this Court in catena of judgments has held that if the amendment is formal in nature and is not going to cause prejudice to either side, it should be allowed. It is further held that if any delay has been caused in filing such application, that can be compensated by the cost. 4. This Court in the case of Pushpa Arora Vs. Anita Arora and others, reported in 2012(1) MPLJ 710 has held as under :-

"8........ In view of the well settled position dealing with the prayer for amendment of the pleadings the following important factors are required to be borne in mind by the Court dealing the application for amendment:—

(i) Whether the amendment is necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

(ii) Whether the application has been made bona fide or with mala fide intention to protract the proceedings.

(iii) Whether the proposed amendment, if allowed, would cause any prejudice to either side which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(iv) Whether by the proposed amendment a party is setting up a new case or cause of action which changes the nature and character of the case.

(v) The application for amendment should not be rejected merely on the ground that delay alone, if the other side can be compensated in terms of cost.

(vi) The amendment which is barred by limitation should not be allowed.

(vii) In case of post trial amendment, the Court has to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

9. I may hasten to add here that the aforesaid factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has failed to take into account the basic principles which are to be kept in mind while deciding the application for amendment.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order by taking into account the well settled legal principles governing grant of amendment.

5. This Court in the case of Ram Pal Vs. Babu Lal and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC Online MP 1409 has held as under :-

8. I have considered the