J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Impugned in this appeal is a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, passed in M.P. No.1695 of 2018 dated 21st August, 2019. The application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of

1 2 Civil Procedure, 1908 , by respondent No.1 was allowed setting aside order dated 14th March, 2018 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr.

Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.09.24

13:43:08 IST Reason:

1 ‘CPC’ for short

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’

District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.241-A/2016, whereby such application stood rejected.

3. The limited question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the amendment to the plaint filed by the present respondents.

4. The facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, as necessary for disposal of the present appeal are:-

3

4.1 The appellant and respondents, are siblings being children of Smt. Katoribai. The dispute relates to House No.27/1695, renumbered as 1695/1804 situated at Gangamai Santar, Murar, District Gwalior, M.P.4 , which was purchased by way of registered sale deed dated 1st January, 1987.

4.2 On 14th January, 2013 Smt. Katoribai, executed a Will and thereby bequeathed the suit property to the defendant herein. She subsequently passed away on 5th March, 2013. As per the defendant, the respondents recognised the Will and acted in furtherance thereof by way of agreements dated 20th December and 28th December, 2014. 4.3 Smt. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), the plaintiff filed a suit bearing No.241-A/2016 before 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior (M.P.), claiming 1/5th share in the suit property by stating that the same

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’

4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’

belonged to their father late Shri Gyan Chand Goyal. The defendant filed a written statement on 25th July, 2016 praying that the suit be dismissed in view of the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai.

4.4 Pursuant to an application dated 28th July, 2016 filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking the production of the Will as well as the Agreements, the defendant produced the same. A temporary injunction was also ordered barring any creation of the third-party rights.

4.5 Mutation in favour of the defendant was carried out in the relevant records. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of her plaint to add a list of movable properties in the property sought to be partitioned as part of the suit, as also questioned the genuineness of the Will. On 26th October, 2017 leave was sought to withdraw the said application. However, a fresh application was filed the same day, along with an application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC asking the defendant to adduce evidence at the first instance.

4.6 By order dated 14th March, 2018, the amendment application as also the application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order a miscellaneous writ petition under Article 227 being M.P.No.1695 of 2018 was preferred by the plaintiff.

4.7. By order dated 21st August, 2019 the High Cout vide the impugned, allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

5. Hence the present appeal.

6. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :-

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

What can be underst