IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5852 of 2025 AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS Versus SHEIKH ISRAEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Eijaz Nazar Siddiqui - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ahadulla Usmani- Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri D.P. Sharma- Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 09-07-

2024 whereby the trial court has allowed application for amendment of the defendant No. 1 in the written statement. The present petition has been filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3, objecting to the amendment made by the defendant No. 1 in his written statement. It is not in dispute that the interests of the defendant No. 1 on one side and the defendants No. 2 and 3 on the other side in the suit are adverse to each other.

2. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that by way of the impugned amendment, certain admissions which were made in the written statement have been sought to be withdrawn and various facts which had been admitted have now been denied and various material pleadings have been permitted to be amended and even the genealogy of the parties is now being disputed and relationships between the parties are being changed. Therefore, the amendment in question is in fact not a bona fide amendment, but it is an amendment setting up a totally new case from the original written statement and withdrawing various admissions made in the earlier written statement.

3. Per contra, counsel for the defendant No. 1 submits that the defendants can always take contradictory pleas and such contradictory pleas can be permitted to be inserted by way of amendment also and amendment in plaint is to be viewed differently from amendment in written statement. 4. From a perusal of the amendment in question, though it prima facie seems that certain admissions have been withdrawn by the said amendment, but looking to the conduct of the petitioner-defendants No. 2 and 3 in timing their petition before this court, they do not seem to be entitled for any relief from this Court.

5. This is for the reason that the amendment in question was allowed on 09-07-2024 and the present petition has been filed after 15 months on 10.10.2025. In the intervening period, on the basis of the amended written statement, the defendant No. 1 has been cross-examined not only by the plaintiff but also by the defendants No. 2 and 3 who are petitioners before this court in this petition. This cross-examination of defendant No. 1 by the counsel for defendants No. 2 and 3 has taken place before the trial court in the months of June, July & August-2025, After this exhaustive cross-examination on the basis of amended written statement has taken place in June, July & August-2025, after closure of cross- examination of defendant No. 1, this petition has been filed objecting to the amendment allowed in written statement of defendant No.1 which had been allowed on 09-07-2024.

6. As the defendant No. 1 has already been exhaustively cross-

examined on the basis of the amended written statement even prior to filing of this petition, therefore, this court does not intend to interfere in the amendment.

7. The petition therefore fails and dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE