##PAGE1##

1 MP-466-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 466 of 2026

MANSING AND OTHERS

Versus

BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Santosh Kumar Meshram - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

14.01.2026 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial court has rejected

application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment in the plaint, whereby

the petitioner/plaintiff had sought to insert the relief of restoration of

possession.

2. The trial court has rejected the said application on the ground that

the application for restoration of possession has been filed after the evidence

of both the parties has been completed and the case is at the stage of final

arguments.

3. It has been considered by the trial court that both the parties have

led their evidence on the basis of the pleadings as initially recorded and if at

such a stage amendment is permitted then it would amount to framing issues

afresh and then putting the case on a fresh trial. The trial court has further

held that the petitioner has not shown due diligence in moving the application

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 03-02-2026

16:15:53

2 MP-466-2026

for amendment because the facts indicate that the petitioner is not in

possession at least since the year 2004 and therefore the trial court did

not find the amendment sought to be bona fide in nature as it also wants to

change the nature of the suit. The trial court has also given some findings

regarding the relief of recovery of possession being barred by Limitation.

4. Upon considering the documents placed on record and on hearing

the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for petitioner could not dispute the

aforesaid findings of the trial court that looking to the various documents

placed on record before the trial court, the plaintiff does not seem to be in

possession since the year 2004 and the suit having been filed in the year

2019, the relief of restoration of possession ought to have been sought at the

very outset. There is nothing pleaded by the petitioner/plaintiff in the

application that he has been dispossessed during pendency of the suit. On the

other hand it has been pleaded in the application for amendment that from

the evidence of the defendant it has come on record that the plaintiff is not in

possession and therefore he wants to seek the relief of restoration of

possession.

5. In the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order passed

by the trial court cannot be faulted with because the plaintiff not being in

possession must be known to the plaintiff from the very beginning and the

amendment is being sought at the stage of final arguments when both the

parties have led their evidence on the basis of contentions made in the

plaint. There is no averment in the application for amendment that there has

been dispossession during the pendency of the suit.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 03-02-2026

16:15:53

3 MP-466-2026

6. Even if the question of limitation may be mixed question of law

and fact for which it will be required to establish that when the possession of

the defendants became adverse to the petitioner/plaintiff so as to attract

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, but still the plaintiff was required to

demonstrate some due diligence in the matter as he is not in possession from

the date of filing of this suit and the amendment is being sought at the stage

of final arguments, which is nothing but misuse of provisions of Order 6

Rule 17. In such cases, the aforesaid provision cannot be misused by the

plaintiff to seek a relief which should have been sought at the very first

instance.

7. The scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is limited in nature. This court does not find

that trial court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to

exer