IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

MISC. PETITION No. 4308 of 2025

MOTILAL JANGID

Versus

CHAUTHMAL JANGID AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1

Reserved on : 09.12.2025 Pronounced on : 06.01.2026

ORDER CPC was also filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the plaint as well as in the relief.

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India being disgruntled by the order dated

th

01.07.2025 passed by learned X Additional District Judge, District - Indore, whereby the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as to

"CPC") for amendment in the plaint and relief, has been rejected.

02. Necessary facts for disposal of this petitioner, in brief, are that,

the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. RCSA/702/22 before the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for declaration, title and obtaining independent possession by making partition, mandatory and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, an application under Order VI rule 17 of

03. A detailed relief was filed by the respondents to the said application and a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

04. Vide order dated 01.07.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application without taking into account the nature of the amendment. Learned Trial Court erred in not considering the vital fact that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of proceedings in the interest of justice on the guidelines which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and ignoring the established rule that the Court while deciding such prayer should not adopt hyper technical approach and liberal approach should be the general rule. Therefore, he has prayed that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and had prayer for its dismissal alleging no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application of the plaintiff.

07. Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

08. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :-

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

09. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v/s Manoj Kumar & Another reported in AIR

2009 SC 2544, wherein it has been held that :-

''10. At this stage we may remind ourselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. Adding a new ground of defense or substituting or altering a defense does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action (see Baldev Singh and others Vs Manohar singh and Another AIR 2006 SC 2832).

11. Similar view has also been expressed in Usha Bala Saheb Swami and others Vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others