Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.C. Nanhoriya vs Nayab Tahsildar Nazul on 2 December, 2025
1 MP-6052-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6052 of 2025
S.C. NANHORIYA
Versus
NAYAB TAHSILDAR NAZUL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Prakash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Bathre - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated 08.08.2025, whereby the trial Court has allowed an amendment in plaint moved by the plaintiff.
2. The background facts of this case have a chequered history, because the suit was initially filed by the respondent-plaintiff long ago, i.e. in the year 2001 and vide order dated 25.11.2002, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, while the counterclaim proceeded before the trial Court.
3. Against the order of rejection of plaint, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court and before the Appellate Court, an application for amendment in plaint was filed by the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff sought to insert the relief of the declaration of title and also proposed an alternative plea that apart from a sale deed 04.04.1986, the plaintiff has also perfected his title by way of adverse possession. In this Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 2 MP-6052-2025 manner, a suit for injunction was sought to be converted into a suit for declaration and injunction by asserting title on the basis of a sale deed and alternatively pleading adverse possession.
4. The said amendment in the plaint was filed before the Appellate Court. Prior to that, the appeal had been disposed of and a civil revision came to be filed before this Court. Lastly, the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the final judgement in Civil Appeal No.4139 of 2006 on 14.09.2006 by remanding the matter back to the High Court. The matter then went back to the Appellate Court and the amendment application was filed before the Appellate Court in the year 2009 and now the matter has landed back in the trial Court. In this manner, the amendment application which was filed initially before the Lower Appellate Court in the year 2009 has now been dealt with by the trial Court in the year 2025.
5. In between, various litigations took place in appeals, revisions, etc., which are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of present petition. The counsel for petitioner had vehemently argued before this Court that the trial Court could not have allowed the amendment, because the amendment application was filed in the year 2009 though the suit had been filed in the year 2001 and thus, the amendment was delayed. It is further argued that a suit for injunction simpliciter is being converted into a suit for declaration as well as for injunction which should not have been permitted. A further plea is taken that the amendment has been allowed at a stage when the trial has already commenced and in view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 3 MP-6052-2025 17 CPC, the amendment ought not to have been allowed.
6. Upon considering the aforesaid submissions and assertions, it is seen that initially the suit was filed only for grant of permanent injunction on the basis of a sale deed asserting that the plaintiff has acquired title by way of sale deed and he seeks permanent injunction on the land.
7. Thereafter, it appears that the title of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants and then the plaintiff brought out an amendment inserting a relief of declaration of title based on two grounds. Firstly, was a sale deed of 04.04.1986 and secondly, an alternative plea of adverse possession.
8. The present status of the suit may not be relevant for the purpose of ascertaining whether the amendment could have been allowed at this stage or not. The stage of the suit at the time of filing of application for amendment is relevant. The plaintiff in his application has contended that the cause of action to seek declaration of title has arisen on 23.10.2008 when in the reply to appeal before the Appellate Court, the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff and otherwise, he was under impression that his title is not disputed as he has a sale deed in his possession.
9. The plaintiff initially sought permanent injunction against the defendants and now on the same set of assertions, i.e. sale deed, which has already been pleaded in the plaint now he seeks declaration of title and further seeks an alternative declaration by raising the ground of adverse possession.
10. The amendment has been opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it changes the nature of the suit and converts the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 4 MP-6052-2025 suit for permanent injunction into a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
11. It is not in dispute that the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and once the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, then though the nature of the suit is slightly changed, but since it will effectively and properly lead to adjudication of controversy between the parties and also avoid multiplicity of proceedings, because otherwise also the plaintiff is having a right to separately institute a suit for declaration. Moreover, the amendment is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint and it does not totally bring a new case and on the basis of facts which have already been pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff now has brought out a plea of declaration of title.
12. The question whether the prayer would be barred by time or not is an arguable issue and it is settled in law that where the issue of limitation is arguable, then after allowing the amendment, the parties should be left free to raise the issue of limitation during trial.
13. In the case of LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. , (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"70. In Somasundaram Chettiar [Somasundaram Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar, 1950 SCC OnLine Mad 74 : AIR 1951 Mad 282] , the Madras High Court held that the rationale for not allowing a claim for damages in a suit for specific performance without a specific pleading is based on the principle that the plaintiff must establish its claim for damages and the defendant must be put on notice and correspondingly have an opportunity to adduce evidence that the damages claimed are excessive or that the plaintiff has not suffered any damages.
71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 5 MP-6052-2025 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 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. 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 6 Rule 17CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
71.3.2. 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 do 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).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
71.4.1. 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.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 6 MP-6052-2025 pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)"
14. The case of the plaintiff and the present matter of falls under paragraphs 71.3.1, 71.3.2 and 71.6 of the aforesaid judgement and in the considered opinion of this Court, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM 7 MP-6052-2025 completely and effectively decide the issues arising between the parties, the trial Court seems to have allowed the amendment, in which no error can be found by this Court.
15. Consequently, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/6/2025 4:10:26 PM