Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aparna Mishra vs Ku. Parul Mishra on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52385
1 MP-1972-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1972 of 2025
SMT. APARNA MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
KU. PARUL MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aarish Hyder - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2025, passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur in M.J.C. Suc/117/2016, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner/ applicant for correction of the amount of the FDRs for which succession application has been filed, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of application, the petitioner has tried to correct the number/amount of the FDRs, which is wrongly mentioned in the main petition. However, it is admitted that in the amendment application column of Nominee is missing. But, it has been candidly admitted by the petitioner that it is not the correction which has been sought, that will remain the same in the original petition. However, only to the extent of entry of the amount of FDRs in the table, correction for entry No.1, i.e. Rs.11,79,816/- is required to be replaced Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 10/16/2025 12:29:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52385 2 MP-1972-2025 by Rs.12,24,943/- and third entry of amount of Rs.17,478/- is required to be replaced by Rs.11,00,339/-. It has also been prayed that the account number for 3rd entry amounting to Rs.11,00,339/- has wrongly been placed in the original petition, which is required to be corrected.
3. It is observed by the court below that because now the evidence of the applicant is over, such amendment cannot be allowed at a belated stage. The Hon. Apex court and this Court in catena of judgments has held that if the amendment is formal in nature and is not going to cause prejudice to either side, it should be allowed. It is further held that if any delay has been caused in filing such application, that can be compensated by the cost.
4. This Court in the case of Pushpa Arora Vs. Anita Arora and others, reported in 2012(1) MPLJ 710 has held as under :-
"8........ In view of the well settled position dealing with the prayer for amendment of the pleadings the following important factors are required to be borne in mind by the Court dealing the application for amendment:--
(i) Whether the amendment is necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.
(ii) Whether the application has been made bona fide or with mala fide intention to protract the proceedings.
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment, if allowed, would cause any prejudice to either side which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(iv) Whether by the proposed amendment a party is setting up a new case or cause of action which changes the nature and character of the case.
(v) The application for amendment should not be rejected merely on the ground that delay alone, if the other side can be compensated in terms of cost.
(vi) The amendment which is barred by limitation should not be allowed.
(vii) In case of post trial amendment, the Court has to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 10/16/2025 12:29:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52385 3 MP-1972-2025
9. I may hasten to add here that the aforesaid factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has failed to take into account the basic principles which are to be kept in mind while deciding the application for amendment.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order by taking into account the well settled legal principles governing grant of amendment.
5. This Court in the case of Ram Pal Vs. Babu Lal and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC Online MP 1409 has held as under :-
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626, has held that the application for amendment should not be rejected on the ground of delay, if the opposite party can be compensated in terms of cost.
No doubt, there is a delay in making the application for amendment, as the same is post-trial amendment, however, the trial Court has rejected the application for amendment merely on the ground of delay. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the application for amendment is allowed. The respondents can be compensated in terms of the cost. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8-3-2010 is quashed. The application for amendment filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3000/- by way of cost before the trial Court within a period of 15 days from today. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to respondent No. 1.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that because such application has been filed belatedly after seven years, the court below has rightly opined that such application cannot be allowed at a belated stage, but it is stated that the amount of FDRs and the account number are the matter of record and the succession certificate can be granted only on the basis of correct entry of the FDRs, Account number and the amount.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 10/16/2025 12:29:40 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52385 4 MP-1972-2025
8. It is evident from the impugned order that the court below has rejected the application only on the ground that such application has not been filed at a initial stage and after commencement of the trial such application has been filed, that too, after closing of evidence of the applicant. As observed by this Court hereinabove that the nature of the amendment is formal in nature and only to correct the amount of FDRs as well as the account number, which is not going to change the nature of the application as well as will not prejudice interest of either of the parties. In fact, the court, while allowing the application for succession certificate has to write the correct amount and the account number, to be granted in favour of the applicant or non-applicant.
9. Considering the totality of the facts and the law on the point of amendment, which is formal in nature, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.1.2025, annexure P/8 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to carry out amendment as sought by the petitioner in the amendment application to the extent of the amount and the account number subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to other side. All other entries of column in the main petition will remain the same.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 10/16/2025 12:29:40 PM