IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5912 of 2025 MS. RAGINI SANGHI D/O LATE SHRI SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI Versus MS. JYOTSANA SANGHI D/O LATE SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI AND SEVEN OTHERS Appearance:

Petitioner - defendant No.2 by Mr. Ashok K. Sethi - Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harish Joshi - Advocate.

Respondent No.1 - plaintiff by Mr. Rishi Tiwari - Advocate.

None appears for other respondents.

WITH MISC. PETITION No. 5125 of 2025 MRS. GITA SANGHI W/O LATE SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI Versus MS. JYOTSNA SANGHI D/O LATE SHRI SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI AND SEVEN OTHERS Appearance:

Petitioner - defendant No.1 by Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate appearing along with Mr. Rahul Hardia - Advocate.

Respondent No.1 - plaintiff by Mr. Rishi Tiwari - Advocate; and none appears for other respondents.

ORDER With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Having regard to the similitude of the controversy involved in these two petitions (Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of 2025 and Miscellaneous Petition No.5125 of 2025), they have been heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. Facts have been taken from Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of

2025.

2.1 This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner – defendant No.2 against impugned order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Regular Civil th Suit No.1228-A of 2021 by learned 9 Additional District Judge, Indore, District Indore (MP), whereby an application (IA No.12) filed under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the Code) filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has been allowed.

2.2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is defendant No.2 in the suit filed by plaintiff (Smt. Jyotsana Sanghi D/o Late Sharad Kumar Sanghi (respondent No.1 herein) before the trial Court, where she has filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent and mandatory injunction, possession on the basis of ‘Will’ dated 07.08.2019 purportedly executed by Sharad Kumar Sanghi. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Sharad Kumar Sanghi died on 21.02.2020 and nominated Pradeep Bansal S/o late Gopikrishna Bansal (defendant No.4), as executor of the ‘Will’. Thereafter, it is alleged that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose on the date of ‘Will’ dated 07.08.2019 on the execution of the ‘Will’, thereafter on the death of the testator on 21.02.2020 and thereafter on 17.03.2020, when defendant No.4 – respondent No.4 (Pradeep Bansal S/o late Gopikrishna Bansal) informed the plaintiff and other defendants about the ‘Will’ and handed over a copy thereof. Thereafter, the cause of action further arose on 08.08.2020 and also 14.08.2020, when defendants No.1 to 3 informed the executor that the ‘Will’ is not acceptable and should not take any action in furtherance of the ‘Will’.

2.3 On 08.05.2025, an application under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the Code which was filed under the signatures and affidavit of one Ravish Bafna, who as per the affidavit stated that he is the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff being well conversant with the facts of the case. Along with the aforesaid application, another application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code was filed by Ravish Bafna stating that in the present suit, the plaintiff had executed a notarized power of attorney dated 22.06.2023 in his favour to undertake all the legal proceedings in the present case / suit. This application is still pending and has not been taken on record, despite the fact that amendment application has been allowed.

2.4 By way of the amendment application, new reliefs have been sought to be added by deleting and withdrawing the already existing pleadings. By way of amendment, the table mentioned in para 54 (d) of the plaint was