IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2622 of 2025 RAMESHCHANDRA Versus MAYANK AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sidharth Chhajed, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khilchipur, District Rajgarh in Civil Suit No.7-B/2019 by which the application filed by the respondents for amendment in written statement has been allowed with cost of Rs.200/-.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents. The respondent filed written statement. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule XVII of CPC for amendment in written statement. The petitioner filed reply of the same. Learned Trial Court has allowed the said application by the impugned order against which, present petition is filed.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the application under Order VI Rule XVII of CPC as respondent was having knowledge of the amendment. As per relevant provision, amendment shall not be allowed after the trial commended where in the present case was listed for final judgment. It is also contended that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law. On these grounds, counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent and perused the record available.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India. Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Limited decided on 01.09.2022 in Civil appeal No.5909/2022 has held as under : -

"(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.

The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-poi