1. Succession dispute over property where amendment to plaint was sought to question genuineness of will and include movable property in partition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9888
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, J
Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
Suman Agarwal (Bindal) – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO................................OF 2024|Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30324/2019
Courts should liberally allow amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC if they are necessary to determine the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not cause irreparable injustice to the opposite party.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The court should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, provided the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side (Paras 11.1 and 11.2). Amendments should generally be allowed if they are for effective and proper adjudication to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, unless they seek to withdraw a clear admission, raise a time-barred claim, completely change the nature of the suit, are malafide, or cause the other side to lose a valid defence (Para 11.2).
Facts of the case:
Siblings were in a dispute over a house property. The appellant claimed sole ownership based on a Will executed by their mother. The respondent filed a suit claiming a 1/5th share, stating the property belonged to their father. After the trial commenced and the appellant produced the Will, the respondent sought to amend the plaint to challenge the genuineness of the Will and include movable properties in the partition. The trial court rejected the application, but the High Court allowed it, noting that the genuineness of the Will was central to the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute fundamentally pertained to succession. Since the appellant relied on a Will to claim sole ownership, the determination of that Will's genuineness is a necessary course of action to determine the real issues between the parties. Without deciding the validity of the Will, partition of the property would be impossible.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after the trial had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while judicial delays are frowned upon, the necessity of determining the real controversy—in this case, the validity of the Will—outweighs procedural delays. A liberal approach should be adopted under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to prevent multiplicity of litigation and ensure the proper adjudication of the core dispute.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Amendment was unduly delayed and not maintainable post-trial commencement; plaintiff contended it was necessary to determine Will's genuineness for partition. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Amendment allowed; appeal dismissed; trial court directed to decide all issues including genuineness of Will expeditiously. (Para 1 , 19 )
4. Can amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC be allowed after commencement of trial?
Yes, the Court may allow amendment at any stage. If sought after trial commences, the Court must conclude that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier. (Para 6 , 13 )
5. What principles govern the exercise of power to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?
Amendments shall be allowed if necessary for determining real questions in controversy without causing injustice. Courts should adopt a liberal approach and avoid hyper-technical reasoning. (Para 11 , 14 )
6. Does unexplained delay in filing an amendment application automatically defeat the application?
No, delay should be avoided but does not always determine the fate of a suit. Where determination of the Will's genuineness is essential, the amendment should be allowed despite delay. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. Did the High Court commit an error in allowing the amendment setting aside the trial court's refusal?
No error. The necessity of determining the Will's genuineness for partition outweighs the delay concern. Without determining the Will, partition of the property cannot proceed. (Para 10 , 12 , 15 , 18 )
JUDGMENT
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 Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC' for short), by respondent No.1, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') was allowed setting aside order dated 14th March, 2018 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior, 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, short of unnecessary detail, as necessary for disposal of the present appeal are:-
4.1 The appellant, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') 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., (Hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), 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 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 Court 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 understood from a reading of the above provision is that, (a) amendment of pleadings can be a
