Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Susheela vs Azadbai D/O Ramchandra Joshi on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623
1 MP-4497-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4497 of 2025
SMT. SUSHEELA AND OTHERS
Versus
AZADBAI D/O RAMCHANDRA JOSHI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Dattatray Kale, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi learned Senior counsel with Shri Harish Joshi -
Advocate for respondent No.5.
Shri Atishay Dhaker, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7.
Ms. Surbhi Bahal, P.L. appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-4].
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.7.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiffs has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/petitioners before this Court have filed civil suit No.500108/2014 on 27.7.2009 seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition against the respondents/defendants with respect to the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.100, 102/1, 103, 104, 105/1, 106, 107/1 and 109/3 total area admeasuring about 11.965 hectares situated at village Tajpura, Tehsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain and also a residential house Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 2 MP-4497-2025 No.61/1 situated at Gandhi Gali, Mahidpur, District Ujjain.
3. By way of the aforesaid civil suit the plaintiffs have sought a declaratory decree based upon the deed of family settlement that they are entitled for 1/9th share in the suit land and the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 be also declared joint owners of the suit house and they are entitled to get their names mutated in the municipal record as per their respective shares. The plaintiffs have also prayed for issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making interference in the plaintiffs' possession over the suit properties and creating any third party right therein. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of partition in terms of the said deed of family settlement (Annexure P/2). The averments made in the plaint were denied by defendants No.1 to 3 based upon the rival pleadings raised by the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues in the matter and the case was fixed for recording the plaintiff's evidence. On the family settlement deed objection with regard to its non-registration and the stamp duty was raised and matter travelled upto Supreme Court and ultimately it was held that the document is not admissible in evidence due to its non-registration and thereafter an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was filed before the trial Court on 19.6.2025 stating therein that plaint contains the categorical pleadings to the effect that defendant No.1 Azadbai happens to be a daughter of Ramchandra Joshi, who had purchased the suit land in the name of his daughter by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.4.1972. This property was purchased in the name of Azad Bai for purpose of maintenance of Azad Bai as well as for the benefit of plaintiffs and even the defendant No.1 remained unaware of the fact that the suit property is a joint ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The aforesaid application was filed with intent to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 3 MP-4497-2025 explain and elaborate the pleadings already existing in the plaint. The proposed amendment application was opposed by the respondents / defendants and the same was dismissed by the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.7.2025 which is under challenge in this petition.
4 . Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that application was filed to explain the pleadings in para 3 and 4 which are already existing and no new pleadings were sought to be incorporated. Even otherwise learned counsel submits that the veracity of the amendment cannot be tested at the time of its incorporation in the plaint or written statement and mere delay in filing the application cannot be a ground to reject the application and for this proposition he has placed reliance upon para 71.2 and 72.3 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr. reported as (2022) 16 SCC 1 . Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No.6301 of 2023 dated 6.1.2025 ( Ashok Rathi & Ors. vs. Kartar Chand & Ors.) reported as ILR 2025 M.P. 1812 . Para 12 and 13 are relevant which reads as under :-
"12. The suit which has been filed by the plaintiffs is within time. On the basis of the averments as made in the plaint, an additional relief is sought for by the plaintiffs. For the present, only amendment has been permitted and defendants would very well have the right to make consequential amendment and raise objection that the relief sought for by way of amendment has become barred by time. An issue can very well be framed by the trial Court in that regard to be decided at the appropriate stage.
13. However, the contention of the defendants that the relief which is being sought for by plaintiffs by way of amendment has become barred by time and permitting the amendment to relate back to the date of suit would have the effect of bringing the same within time which would deprive them of the advantage accrued to them by lapse of time cannot be lost sight of. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another , 2002 (7) SCC 559 had held that interests of defendants can be protected by directing that so Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 4 MP-4497-2025 far as the relief sought for by way of amendment is concerned, prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment was filed. The defendants have raised a contention that the relief sought for by plaintiffs by way of amendment has become barred by time. Their right to contend so cannot be taken away by way of the amendment."
5. On these submissions learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC by the plaintiffs and direction to the trial Court to incorporate the proposed amendment in the plaint.
6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that suit was filed on 27.7.2009. When trial has already started an amendment application was filed on 19.6.2025 after near about 16 years of filing of the suit for incorporating time barred relief. He further submits that inconsistent pleadings cannot be allowed. Pleadings with regard to nature of disputed property as ancestral was not pleaded hence the learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has placed reliance on para 7, 10 and 15 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavara vs. Indira & Ors . 2024(3) SCC 705 , para 12, 13 and 18 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (dead) through LR's vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr . 2008 (14) SCC 364, M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors , 2020 (1) MPLJ 43 and Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors , (2009)10 SCC 84 .
8 . Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 5 MP-4497-2025 further argued that no reason has been assigned as to why the pleadings which have been proposed by way of amendment were not pleaded in the plaint from the very beginning. He further submits that when the family settlement deed was established to be not admissible in evidence even by the Apex Court, only then belatedly amendment application was filed to defeat the aforesaid order. He further argued that if as per contentions of the plaintiffs, pleadings are already there in the plaint, then even dismissal of the amendment application will not prejudicely affect the interest of the plaintiffs as they will be in position to lead evidence on the pleadings already in plaint therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below hence prays for rejection of the petition.
9. Similarly, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 has placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Usman Habib Dhuka reported as (2013) 9 SCC 485 and submits that trial has started mere impleadment of purchasers as defendants and calling their W.S. cannot be made a ground to propose the amendment saying that case is at preliminary stage. He has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5.
10. In reply, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the case is at preliminary stage as W.S. is yet to be obtained from the newly added defendants hence no prejudice will be caused if the proposed amendment is allowed.
11. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed for relief on 27.7.2009 for the reliefs mentioned hereinabove and the application for incorporating amendment has been filed on 29.7.2025. It is also not in dispute that family settlement deed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 6 MP-4497-2025 was objected by the defendants on the ground that it is not admissible in evidence as it is not registered and the matter travelled upto the Apex Court. The objection was upheld and the document was held to be inadmissible in evidence and thereafter the amendment was proposed. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that to defeat the order the proposed amendment has been filed after the delay of nine years. If contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that pleadings are there in para 3 and 4 of the plaint and amendment is only for explaining the pleadings is, taken on its face value as true, even rejection of the proposed amendment will not debar the plaintiffs from leading evidence on the pleadings which are already existing in the plaint.
13. From perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.7.2025, it is revealed that learned trial Court has taken into consideration the factual matrix of the case and also the judgments relied upon by the parties and also amendment in the Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which was inserted as proviso by the Amendment Act, 2002 wherein it has been provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
14. In the instant case plaintiffs have not shown any cogent reason as to why they could not incorporate the proposed pleading when the plaint was initially filed. The proposed amendment is not only delayed, but if allowed would also prejudice the interest of the defendants. Hence in the considered opinion of this Court the learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of amendment by impugned order. No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned orders. In the aforesaid factual matrix the judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and Ashok Rathi & Ors. (supra) do not Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8623 7 MP-4497-2025 come to the rescue of the petitioners / plaintiffs. Hence the petition is devoid of any substance fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE SS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 02-04-2026 18:42:10