Delhi High Court - Orders
Smt Saroj vs Smt Uma & Ors on 16 March, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 539/2023
SMT SAROJ .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. D V Khatri, and Mr. Harshad
Gupta Advocates
versus
SMT UMA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. P. S. Rana, Mr. Harshit
Aggarwal, Mr. Kunwar Tyagi, Advs.
for Defendants no.- 1,2,3 & 6
Mr. Sushant Dahiya, Ms. Smritee
Relan & Mr. Shourya Relan, Advs.
for D4 & D5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 16.03.2026 I.A. 26202/2023
1. This application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff for amendment of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit is one for partition and permanent injunction with respect to agricultural land measuring 13 Bhigha 1 Biswa comprising in Khasra No.36/6 (4-16), 15/1(1-4), 37/1(5-0), 37/1/10(2-1), situated in village Bhorgarh at Narela Bawana Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Suit Property‟).
3. Facts of the case reveal that the Suit Property originally belonged to Smt. Kanta Goel. It is stated that the first major legal transaction occurred on 14.05.2007, when Smt. Kanta Goel executed a registered Sale Deed CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 1 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 transferring the entire land in specified shares to four purchasers, namely Sh. Dinesh Kumar (30%) S/o Late Sh. Jai Prakash, Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Radhey Shyam (30%), Sh. Shiv Kumar (20%), and Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Chander Bhan (20%), thereby converting the property into a joint co-ownership without any formal partition by metes and bounds.
4. Subsequently, the co-ownership structure underwent further transformation on 07.12.2017, when Sh. Dinesh Kumar alienated part of his 30% share by executing a registered Sale Deed in favour of Smt. Uma (Defendant No.1 herein) thereby selling approximately 5% of his share in the Suit Property. It is stated that Sh. Dinesh Kumar also executed a Gift Deed dated 07.12.2017 transferring his remaining 25% share to his wife, Smt. Saroj (the Plaintiff herein), thus conferring joint proprietary rights upon them. It is stated that on the same date, another co-owner, Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Radhey Shyam, also re-distributed his 30% share by selling approx. 9% to Smt. Anju (Defendant No.2 herein) by executing a registered Sale Deed and gifting the remaining 21% to his wife, Smt. Savita (Defendant No.3 herein) by executing a Gift Deed, thereby further fragmenting the co- ownership interests in the Suit Property.
5. Thereafter, on 06.04.2018, the third co-owner, Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Chander Bhan, executed a registered Sale Deed transferring his entire 20% share to Sh. Shankar Lal (Defendant No.4 herein) and Sh. Jag Mohan (Defendant No.5 herein), who thereby entered into the joint ownership matrix along with the earlier purchaser Shiv Kumar (Defendant No.6 herein).
6. Despite the multiplicity of transfers, the Suit Property remained legally undivided, and the parties continued to possess and cultivate their CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 2 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 respective portions under an oral Mutual Arrangement, which did not correspond with their exact legal shares.
7. It is stated that a significant statutory development occurred on 20.11.2019, when Village Bhorgarh was declared urbanized under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, altering the legal character of the land and bringing it within the jurisdictional purview of civil courts.
8. It is stated that in July 2023, officials representing Bajaj's Transmission Line Technology visited the Suit Property and proposed installation of Extra High Voltage transmission towers, followed by commencement of excavation work in early August 2023. It is stated that this development disturbed the fragile oral arrangement among the co- owners and allegedly prompted certain Defendants to initiate illegal construction of boundary walls and structures with the intention of effecting forcible partition and encroaching upon common areas, including access passages. The Plaintiff, thereafter, approached this Court seeking demarcation of her 25% share in the Suit Property by metes and bounds and also seeking restraint against further unauthorized acts by the Defendants on the Suit Property.
9. Summons in the Suit were issued on 01.09.2023. Separate Written Statements were filed by the Defendants. Issues are yet to be framed.
10. The Defendants, in their respective written statements, have primarily raised objections to the maintainability of the Suit and the Plaintiff's entitlement to relief. It is contended that the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, particularly the alleged Partition Deed dated 17.04.2023, pursuant to which the Suit property CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 3 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 is stated to have already been divided by metes and bounds and exclusive possession taken by each co-owner. On this basis, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain a partition Suit, as the property is no longer joint and the parties are already in settled possession of their respective portions.
11. The Defendants further pleaded that the Suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and is liable to be rejected under procedural law. It is also urged that the Suit discloses no valid cause of action and has been instituted merely to re-agitate matters already concluded through prior transactions and arrangements, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of court. According to the defence, the Plaintiff has instituted the proceedings only with the intention of unsettling the existing possession and attempting to grab a larger share in the property.
12. On merits, while acknowledging the historical chain of title beginning with the original owner and subsequent registered transfers among co- owners and their transferees, the Defendants emphasise that the legal status of the property changed after the alleged partition, which has rendered the present Suit redundant. They therefore seek dismissal of the Suit on grounds of suppression, lack of cause of action, improper valuation, absence of jointness, and the Plaintiff's disentitlement to equitable relief.
13. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff for amending the Plaint. In the present Application, it is stated that in the written statements filed by the Defendants, the Defendants for the first time disclosed the existence of an alleged unregistered Deed of Partition dated 17.04.2023 / 24.05.2023, asserting that the Suit land had already been partitioned among co-owners. The Plaintiff has categorically denied the CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 4 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 execution or knowledge of such a document and contends that no physical partition ever took place in accordance with legal shares. It is further pleaded that the Plaintiff is a pardanashin lady who had reposed trust in the Defendants and that her signatures and thumb impressions may have been obtained on blank papers by fraud, misrepresentation and manipulation, which were subsequently used to fabricate the alleged partition deed and site plan. The Plaintiff has also challenged the Defendants' plea that she executed Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, possession letter and receipt all dated 20.05.2023 in favour of Defendants No.4 and 5 for a plot measuring 400 sq. yards. According to the Plaintiff, only negotiations for sale had taken place, and advance cheques were handed over, but the balance consideration was never paid and no registered Sale Deed or delivery of possession was effected. She asserts that these documents were procured fraudulently and notarised without her knowledge or presence. The Plaintiff states that these facts came to her knowledge only upon receipt of the written statements and documents filed by the Defendants, making it necessary to seek amendment of the plaint for proper adjudication of the dispute.
14. Replies to the present Application have been filed by the Defendants objecting to the present Application on the ground that that it is not maintainable and has been filed only to fill lacunae in the Plaintiff's case and to overcome the consequences of alleged suppression of material documents, particularly the sale documents dated 20.05.2023. It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has falsely pleaded that the property is a joint property despite having acknowledged partition and having transferred a portion of her share for consideration, thereby abusing the process of the court and adopting dilatory tactics after obtaining interim relief. It is further CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 5 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 urged that the Plaintiff's plea of being a pardanashin or naive lady is untenable, as she personally executed documents before the Sub-Registrar and received consideration through banking channels, thus being estopped from challenging the transactions. The Defendants submit that the proposed amendment seeks to introduce an entirely new case and alters the fundamental nature of the Suit by adding declaratory and cancellation reliefs, which, according to them, should be pursued through a separate Suit.
15. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
16. Before going further, it is pertinent to extract Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the same 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."
17. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, so long as such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and provided the application is not hit by the proviso restricting post-trial amendments. As issues in the present Suit have not yet been framed, the bar under the proviso does not come into operation.
18. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 6 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 of the CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing amendment of pleadings. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
"33. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the courts should be liberal in allowing applications for leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations brought about by reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p. 517, para 16).
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].)"
34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 7 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
"9. By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for early disposal of the Suits. In furtherance of the aforementioned parliamentary object, further amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and 2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as under:
"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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.""
35. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:--
"4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796] held:
"The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a Suit on new case or CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 8 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19 Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438] The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith [[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
The expression „cause of action‟ in the present context does not mean „every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed‟ as was said in Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT 32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd. [[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 9 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words „new case‟ have been understood to mean „new set of ideas‟ : Dornan v. J.W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time."
Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22) "The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court."
"4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued."......"
***** CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 10 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03
37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the Suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings."
19. In addition, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as under:-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
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, CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 11 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03
(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 hypertechnical 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 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 CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 12 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 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 CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 13 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 Del 1897] .)"
20. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and upon a careful examination of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the amendments sought by the Plaintiff deserve to be allowed.
21. The amendments sought by the Plaintiff are primarily in the nature of elaboration and clarification of facts which, according to the Plaintiff, came to light only upon disclosure of the alleged partition deed and related transactional documents by the Defendants in their written statements. The proposed amendments seek to incorporate pleadings challenging the validity and legal effect of such documents and to introduce consequential reliefs of declaration and cancellation. This Court is of the view that the said amendments arise out of the same property, the same chain of title, and the same substratum of dispute relating to the alleged joint status of the Suit Property.
22. It is well settled that amendments which are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and which avoid multiplicity of proceedings ought ordinarily to be allowed, particularly where the trial has not commenced. In the present case, issues have not yet been framed and the Defendants would have adequate opportunity to meet the case set up by the Plaintiff in the amended pleadings. The proposed amendments do not introduce a wholly new or inconsistent cause of action but constitute an additional approach to the existing dispute concerning title, partition and the validity of subsequent transactions.
23. The contention of the Defendants that the amendment alters the nature CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 14 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03 of the Suit is not persuasive at this stage, as the core dispute regarding the Plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the Suit Property remains unchanged. Whether the impugned documents are valid, binding, or operative are matters which fall within the scope of adjudication in the present lis and can appropriately be examined on evidence. Any prejudice caused to the Defendants can be sufficiently compensated by granting liberty to file amended Written Statement(s).
24. This Court is therefore satisfied that the proposed amendments are bona fide, are necessary for effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties, and would subserve the ends of justice by enabling a comprehensive determination of the rival claims in a single proceeding.
25. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
26. The Plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendments in the plaint in terms of the schedule annexed to the application. The amended plaint shall be filed within one week from today.
27. On amended Plaint being filed, let the same be taken on record.
28. The Defendants are at liberty to file Written Statement(s) to the amended portion of the Plaint within the time prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
29. The Application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 539/2023 & I.A. 16666/2023
30. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 11.05.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 16, 2026 Rahul CS(OS) 539/2023 Page 15 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 20:39:03