IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 3041 of 2024 YOGESH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus PRAKASH CHAND AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for petitioners- defendants No. 3 and 4.

Shri Ram Krishna Soni- Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2-

plaintiffs.

ORDER This misc. petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenges order dated 15-05-2024 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.07-A of 2016, whereby amendment application filed by plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed.

2. Facts of case, in brief, giving rise to present petition, are that respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of sale deeds as null and void and for permanent injunction. The dispute involves property partition and inheritance. After issues were framed on 21-01-2019, plaintiffs moved amendment application under on 02-05-2024 to correct dimensions and orientation of property in attached map (from 25 x 57 sq. ft. to 20.9 x 57 sq. ft.), claiming original map contained clerical errors. The said application was allowed by trial court vide impugned order. Hence, this petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that amendment is post-trial attempt to change nature of suit after five-year delay. The plaintiffs are attempting to withdraw previous admissions regarding property's location and amendment causes grave prejudice, as the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of correct dimensions through previous litigation.

4. On other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs- respondents no. 1 and

2 submits that amendment was necessary to correctly identify suit property for effective adjudication. Mere delay should not be ground for rejection when amendment is essential to resolve real controversy. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. The primary purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to resolve real question in controversy. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, has categorically held that if proposed amendment does not change nature of suit and is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of dispute, amendment application cannot be rejected merely on ground of delay.

7. In the present case, amendment sought by the plaintiffs is to rectify technical description and dimensions of property. Such correction does not alter fundamental nature of suit for declaration and injunction. To ensure final and executable decree, identity of the property must be accurate.

Petitioners shall have right to rebut the amendment.

8. Upon perusal of impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error. No interference is warranted. Instant misc.

petition fails and is hereby dismissed. no order as to costs.

(HIRDESH)

JUDGE MKB