IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 5011 of 2025 SMT. GAYATRIRAJE PUAR AND OTHERS Versus SMT. SHAILAJARAJE PUAR W/O AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri R.S. Chhabra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raghav Raj Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Heard on : 16.12.2025 Pronounced on : 11.02.2026 ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the District Judge, District Dewas in RCS No.101A/2021, whereby respondent No.1/plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) for amendment in the plaint has been allowed.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of this petition, are that on

05.07.2018, petitioner No.1/defendant filed an application for grant of probate/letter of administration bearing MJC No.269/2018 before the Additional District Judge, Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh (‘Probate Application”, in her capacity as the wife of late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar seeking probate of the will dated 06.06.1988 and letter of administration of estate of her deceased husband. The occasion to file said Probate Application has arisen as respondent No.1 has raised a dispute and claimed her alleged share in Pune property.

3. During the pendency of proceedings in respect of the Probate Application, the respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, mesne profit, possession and partition of the ancestral and self- acquired properties of late Shri Krishnaji Rao Puar bearing RCS No.101A/2021 on 11.08.2021 before the Trial Court, Dewas seeking inter alia declaration of the will dated 06.06.1988 (in respect of which the Probate Application had already been filed by the petitioner No.1) as null and void.

4. Petitioners/defendants filed their written statement before the Trial Court. Thereafter, on 08.04.2025, the issues were framed by the Trial Court and even the list of witnesses was submitted by the petitioners.

5. Further, on 05.05.2025, the respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court seeking inter-alia amendment in the plaint and that additional documents be taken on record.

6. The petitioners filed their reply to the aforesaid application before the Trial Court. Even the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted their reply to the aforesaid application before the Trial Court. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2025, learned Trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application.

Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Trial Court has committed a grave error while allowing a belated and legally impermissible amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The impugned order has been passed in a completely mechanical manner, ignoring the mandatory statutory safeguards, settled law, which caused grave prejudice to the petitioners. He has also contended that the suit was filed on in the year 2021 and amendment application was filed in the year 2025 i.e. after a lapse of nearly four years, which is a gross and unexplained delay.

8. As per the petitioners, respondent No.1 has not stated even a single fact that in what circumstances, he was prevented from including these properties earlier. While, without testing whether due diligence, as mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, was ever shown, amendment cannot be permitted. Once the trial has commenced, the Court has no discretion unless it records a finding that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier. In the amendment application, itself, it has been admitted that some of the properties, which are sought to be added existed much before the suit, which shows clear attempt to