Court allowed amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, affirming the necessity to enable consequential relief in pending suits.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the Revision Petition, challenging the order of the Trial Court vide which their prayer for amendment of the plaint was turned down, has been upheld. The Civil Court as well as the High Court, thus, have declined the prayer for amendment of the Suit, inter alia, on the ground that the amendment sought was inconsistent and that the appellants have not shown due diligence as is mandated under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

3. The controversy in the amendment of the Suit has arisen in the backdrop that the appellants are owners of the land. They entered into an agreement dated 30.06.2011 with the respondents, who are developer-cum-builders. This was a development agreement whereunder the appellants assigned a part of their property to the Signature Not Verified Digitalyr sigeneds bypondents for its commercial development. The appellants’ case is SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.10.18

12:16:29 IST Reason:

that the respondents have failed to start construction within the stipulated period of three years. Consequently, the appellants have filed Special Civil Suit No.6/17 in the Civil Court at Pune, seeking a declaration that the agreement dated 30.06.2011 stands cancelled and the agreement is not enforceable.

4. In the ad-interim injunction issued in the matter, it seems that there came some observations that the respondent- defendants are in possession of the suit land. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Suit to the extent that, in the event the same is decreed, they shall be entitled to seek possession of the subject land. It is that amendment which has been declined by the Civil Court as well as the High Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. In the very nature of things, the amendment sought by the appellants does not alter the nature of the suit. The amendment cannot be said to be inconsistent for the reason that once there are observations in the ad-interim injunction proceedings that the respondents have taken possession, the appellants are well within their right to seek the consequential relief to which they might be entitled, in the event their suit is decreed. The plea of lack of due diligence has also been misconstrued by the Civil Court and the High Court for the reasons that the delay, if any, in adjudication of the Suit is likely to cause prejudice to the appellants and not the respondents.

7. Taking into consideration all such issues, the instant appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the Trial Court dated 29.03.2022, as well as the High Court dated 15.12.2023, are set aside. The application filed by the appellants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The amended plaint is taken on record. The respondents are permitted to file an amended Written Statement, if so advised, within a period of two weeks. The Civil Court is, thereafter, directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law expeditiously, and make an endeavour to decide the Suit within a period of one year. Ordered accordingly.

.........................J.

(SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J.

(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 15, 2025.

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17788/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-12-2023 in WP No.6859/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]

RAJMAL @ RAJESH CHANDANMAL LUNIYA & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS PANKAJ AMRUTLAL NAVALAKHA & ORS. Respondent(s)

FOR ADMISSION Date : 15-10-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI