IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7035 of 2025

KU. AMBIKA PILLAI

Versus

SMT. ANJANA PILLAI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rajneesh Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER was initially owned by her deceased father late Tarachand Pillai and upon his death his 5 children would get 1/5 share each in the suit property as their mother had also expired prior to filing of the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2012 and the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 filed a written statement as well as a counter claim on the assertion that there was a gift deed in favour of late Ashok Pillai. After the factum of gift deed was disclosed by the defendants No. 1 to 3, then the petitioner amended her plaint and inserted the pleadings to challenge the gift deed dated 29.02.1980.

The present petition under article 227 has been filed challenging the

orders dated 15.10.2025 and 26.11.2025 passed by the trial court. By the order dated 15.10.2025, the trial court has rejected the application for amendment in plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC and by the order dated 26.11.2025, the trial court has rejected application under Order 14 Rule 5 for framing additional issue in the matter of will stated to be executed by the

deceased father of the plaintiff dated 10.10.1986.

2. A suit has been filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff against the

defendants No. 1,2,3 who are the legal representatives of deceased brother of the petitioner namely late Ashok Pillai whereas the defendants No. 4 to 6 are the other brothers and sisters of the petitioner/plaintiff. The defendant No. 7 is the subsequent purchaser of part of the suit property who has purchased

the same from defendants No. 1 to 3.

3. The petitioner had filed the suit on the assertion that the property

4. Thereafter the defendants No. 4 to 6 filed their written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff. They filed the written statement in the year 2013 but later on moved an amendment application on the ground that a will was executed by the deceased on 10.10.1986 as per which certain properties were given over to his wife as well as all children and that only as per will, the succession would take place. However the amendment in the written statement of defendants No. 4 to 6 could take place only when this court had directed in M.P. No. 6118/2024 vide order dated 11.11.2024 that the defendants can take alternative defence and permitted amendment to take place in the written statement after the trial court had rejected the amendment saying that suit has been filed in the year 2012 and the application for amendment has been filed 10 years after filing the written statement and now 10 years after filing the written statement, plea of will is being taken. It is pertinent to note here that a similar application was earlier filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint on the ground of will which was rejected by the trial court dated 22.07.2024 and that rejection has been confirmed by this Court in M.P. No. 4178/2024 vide order dated 29.03.2025. This Court in the said petition has categorically held that if amendment application is allowed, then the same would definitely change the nature of the suit and such pleadings cannot be inserted 12 years after filing of the suit.

5. After suffering rejection of her own application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to insert pleadings regarding will. The petitioner filed a fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to carry out consequential amendment in the plaint as a consequence of allowing of application of defendants No. 4 to 6 in the written statement.

6. The counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued before this court that notwithstanding the earlier rejection of application for amendment of the petitioner/ plaintiff', once the amendment of written statement of defendants No. 4 to 6 was permitted by this court, then t