IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

A T J A B A L P U R

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

ON THE 14^th OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7518 of 2025

RAJKUMAR JAISINGHANI

Versus

SUSHIL KUMAR JAISINGHANI AND OTHERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Anand Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Samarth Shrivastava – Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Shubhankori Banerji –

Advocate for respondent/caveator.

Shri Mukund Agrawal – Advocate for respondent No.5.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER to exercise his right of pre-emption.

The present petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the

order passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has rejected the

application for amendment of the plaint.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has sought amendment in the plaint seeking to amend the offered value for which he intends to purchase the interest of the defendants No.1 to 3 from Rs.5.00 crore to Rs.9.00 crore

3. A suit has been filed by the present petitioner for exercising the right of pre-emption, declaration of sale deed dated 30.08.2024 as void, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

4. It is contended in the said suit that the defendants No.1 to 3 are brothers and sisters of plaintiff. The property in question was initially owned by the mother of these parties and thereafter upon death of her mother and father, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are the joint owners of the suit property. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff is having the right of pre-emption, but, despite that, the undivided share in the property has been sold by the defendants No.1 to 3 to the defendant No.4 for consideration of Rs.8.91 crores.

5. The plaintiff sought to exercise his right of pre-emption against the vendee who had purchased the share of defendants No.1 to 3 prior to filing of the suit and in paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff had categorically pleaded that he wants to purchase the undivided share of defendants No.1 to 3 for consideration of Rs.5.00 crore and by paying this much consideration, he wants to exercise the right of pre-emption.

6. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking to amend the offered price of Rs.5.00 crore to Rs.9.00 crore by seeking amendment in paragraph 7 of the plaint.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner before this Court had argued that the trial Court has erroneously rejected the application for amendment on the ground that it amounts to material change in the pleadings which is being brought into the fray after filing of written statement and counter-claim by the defendants. The aforesaid amendment would lead to the material change in the pleading, leading to injustice to the other side and, therefore, rejected the amendment application. It is argued that as per Section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the price for which right of pre-emption is being enforced by the co-sharer, is always negotiable and has to be ascertained by the Court and, therefore, the change of the figure by the petitioner from Rs.5.00 crore to Rs.9.00 crore, was not such an amendment which would have prejudiced the defence of the defendants, because the final figure has to be adjudicated by the Court. Therefore, it is contended that the amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

8. Per contra, counsel for the respondents/defendants have vehemently opposed the present petition and have contended that by allowing the present amendment, the very defence of the defendants would be lost and also that the amendment in changing the offer price to exercise the right of pre-emption has been brought by the plaintiff after the defendants have filed written statement and also counter-claim seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and, th