Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Gita Sanghi vs Ms. Jyotsna Sanghi on 12 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
1 MP-5125-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5912 of 2025
MS. RAGINI SANGHI D/O LATE SHRI SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI
Versus
MS. JYOTSANA SANGHI D/O LATE SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI
AND SEVEN OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner - defendant No.2 by Mr. Ashok K. Sethi - Learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Harish Joshi - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - plaintiff by Mr. Rishi Tiwari - Advocate.
None appears for other respondents.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 5125 of 2025
MRS. GITA SANGHI W/O LATE SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI
Versus
MS. JYOTSNA SANGHI D/O LATE SHRI SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI
AND SEVEN OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner - defendant No.1 by Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate appearing along
with Mr. Rahul Hardia - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - plaintiff by Mr. Rishi Tiwari - Advocate; and none appears for
other respondents.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
2 MP-5125-2025
Having regard to the similitude of the controversy involved in these
two petitions (Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of 2025 and Miscellaneous
Petition No.5125 of 2025), they have been heard analogously and are being
disposed off by this common order.
2. Facts have been taken from Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of
2025.
2.1 This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred by the petitioner – defendant No.2 against
impugned order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Regular Civil
Suit No.1228-A of 2021 by learned 9 th Additional District Judge, Indore,
District Indore (MP), whereby an application (IA No.12 ) filed under Order
VI Rules 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (herein after referred to as the Code) filed by the plaintiff (respondent
No.1 herein) has been allowed.
2.2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is defendant No.2 in
the suit filed by plaintiff (Smt. Jyotsana Sanghi D/o Late Sharad Kumar
Sanghi (respondent No.1 herein) before the trial Court, where she has filed
the suit for declaration of title, permanent and mandatory injunction,
possession on the basis of ‘Will’ dated 07.08.2019 purportedly executed by
Sharad Kumar Sanghi. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Sharad Kumar
Sanghi died on 21.02.2020 and nominated Pradeep Bansal S/o late
Gopikrishna Bansal (defendant No.4), as executor of the ‘Will’. Thereafter, it
is alleged that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose on the date of
‘Will’ dated 07.08.2019 on the execution of the ‘Will’, thereafter on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
3 MP-5125-2025
death of the testator on 21.02.2020 and thereafter on 17.03.2020, when
defendant No.4 – respondent No.4 (Pradeep Bansal S/o late Gopikrishna
Bansal) informed the plaintiff and other defendants about the ‘Will’ and
handed over a copy thereof. Thereafter, the cause of action further arose on
08.08.2020 and also 14.08.2020, when defendants No.1 to 3 informed the
executor that the ‘Will’ is not acceptable and should not take any action in
furtherance of the ‘Will’.
2.3 On 08.05.2025, an application under Order VI Rules 16 and 17
read with Section 151 of the Code which was filed under the signatures and
affidavit of one Ravish Bafna, who as per the affidavit stated that he is the
power of attorney holder of the plaintiff being well conversant with the facts
of the case. Along with the aforesaid application, another application under
Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code was filed by Ravish Bafna stating that in
the present suit, the plaintiff had executed a notarized power of attorney
dated 22.06.2023 in his favour to undertake all the legal proceedings in the
present case / suit. This application is still pending and has not been taken
on record, despite the fact that amendment application has been allowed.
2.4 By way of the amendment application, new reliefs have been
sought to be added by deleting and withdrawing the already existing
pleadings. By way of amendment, the table mentioned in para 54 (d) of the
plaint was sought to be withdrawn and a new table was sought to be
introduced. This application was also time barred, as per Entry 58 Part I of
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application was opposed by the
petitioner (s) on various grounds including it being time barred and by way
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
4 MP-5125-2025
of this amendment admissions are going to be withdrawn, but this
application has been allowed by the impugned order in favour of the
plaintiff, which is under challenge in the petition (s).
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner – defendant No.2
in Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of 2025 submits that the learned trial
Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record in allowing the
application, ignoring the fact that power of attorney holder is a stranger till
date and the same has not been brought on record. Learned trial Court also
ignored the fact that the claim is barred by law of limitation and also ignoring
the fact that in the suit, the plaintiff has relinquished her claims with regard
to certain properties and without leave of the Court under Order II Rule 2 of
the Code, subsequent suit has been filed for the same, which is still pending
for registration. The plaintiff knowing that the subsequent suit is not going
to be registered, as hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code and
reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit have been sought to be incorporated in
the instant suit by way of this amendment application, which is not
permissible for the aforesaid reasons of limitation and also hit by the
provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code. On these contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner (s) prayed for allowing their petitions by setting
aside the impugned order, whereby an application filed on behalf of the
plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code has been allowed.
3.1 To buttress the submissions raised on behalf of petitioner –
defendant No.2, Mr. Ashok K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No.5912 of 2025 has placed reliance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
5 MP-5125-2025
on the following judgments delivered by the Apex Court in cases of (1)
Basavraj v. Indira & others, Civil Appeal No.2886 of 2012 , judgment dated
29.02.2024 reported in MANU/SC/0148/2024 (paras 12, 13 and 14); Van
Vibhag Karmachari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh
Chander & others, Civil Appeal No.8982 of 2010 , judgment dated
19.10.2010 reported in MANU/SC/0866/2010 (paras 35 to 39); Revajeetu
Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others , Civil
Appeal No.6921 of 2009, judgment dated 09.10.2009 reported in
MANU/SC/1724/2009 (para 67 to 70); and Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire &
General Insurance Company Limited & others, Civil Appeal No.10337 of
1995, judgment dated 09.11.1995 reported in MANU/SC/0162/1996 (para
6). Reliance has also been placed on order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this
Court in Anil Gadkar & others v. Pradeep Jadhav, Miscellaneous Petition
No.5589 of 2025 (para 4).
3.2 To buttress the submissions raised on behalf of petitioner –
defendant No.1, Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No.5125 of 2025 has placed reliance on
the following judgments / orders in cases of (1) Raj Kumar v. Dipender Kaur
Sethi, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 304 (para 8); (2) Nikhila Divyang Mehta
and another v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
779 (paras 20, 24, 25 and 27); (3) Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another , reported in (2022) 16 SCC
(para 71.3); and (4) order dated 05.04.2022 in case of Rameshchandra S/o
Late Shri Ramtatan Ji Sharma & three others v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
6 MP-5125-2025
Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma & two others, Miscellaneous Petition No.5277
of 2019 (Jabalpur).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – plaintiff has
vehemently opposed the case of the petitioners – defendants No.2 and 1 on
the ground that the objection with regard to Order II Rule 2 of the Code
cannot eclipse the right of the plaintiff to amend the plaint under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code. He further submits that the issue of limitation being
mixed question of facts and law cannot be decided without recording
evidence and the merits of the amendment can only be considered, after it is
allowed and has been incorporated in the pleadings. In this regard, he has
relied upon paras 49 to 54 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
case of Pankaja & another v. Yellappa (dead) by LRs. and others reported in
(2004) 6 SCC 415 .
4.1 He further submits that the amendments are allowed, necessary
for determination of real controversy and it will also reduce multiplicity of
suits; and in regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment
delivered by the Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India
v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1
(paras 71.1, 71.2, 71.5, 71.6, 71.7, 71.8 and 71.9).
4.2 He further by inviting attention of this Court towards Order III
Rule 2 of the Code submits that the recognized agents of the parties by
whom such appearance, applications and acts may be made or done are
persons holding power of attorney, authorizing them to make and do such
appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties. In reply to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
7 MP-5125-2025
petitions, plaintiff has supported the fact that power of attorney holder is an
agent. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance upon paras 9, 11
and 19 of the order / judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay in
case of All India Reporter Limited v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar reported in
AIR 1961 Bombay 292 .
4.3 Learned counsel has further submitted that the objections with
regard to Order II Rule 2 of the Code are misconstrued and misleading, as it
operates as a bar on the subsequent suit and the field of amendment of
pleadings falls far beyond its purview. For this, he has placed reliance upon
para 71.1 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Life
Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 .
4.4 He further submits that scope of petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is very limited, as held by the Apex Court in landmark
judgment in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil retorted
in (2010) 8 SCC 329 [para 49 (e), (f), (g) and (h)].
4.5 Learned counsel has further submitted that petitions have been
filed on assumption, that their objection under Order II Rule 2 of the Code
will be accepted, even though this application is still pending and no order
has been passed. He further submits that if the petitioners – defendants No.1
and 2 are so confident that the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1
herein) is time barred, then they could have filed an application under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code, however, that has not been filed.
4.6 He further submits that petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 had
filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, which were allowed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
8 MP-5125-2025
by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.05.2022; and both the suits
were dismissed. These orders were challenged by answering respondent
(plaintiff) by preferring First Appeal No.799 of 2021 and First Appeal
No.2021 of 2022 wherein judgment dated 09.05.2023, this Court was pleased
to allow both the appeals and the matters were remanded back to the trial
Court to decide these suits, in accordance with law. Thus, looking to the
conduct of the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 (defendants), a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) was imposed.
4.7 To buttress his submissions, Mr. Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for
the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the following judgments delivered
by the Apex Court in cases of State of Andhra Pradesh Through Inspector
General, National Investigation Agency v. Mohammad Hussain reported in
(2014) 1 SCC 258 (para 19); Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs. and
others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs. and others reported in (2003)
3 SCC 272 (paras 26 and 31); and Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan &
others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 (paras 5 and 6).
4.8 On these submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 –
plaintiff supporting the impugned order urges the Court for dismissing the
petitions, as they are devoid of any substance and are filed for harassing the
plaintiff.
5. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 –
plaintiff, learned counsels for the petitioner in both the petitions have again
reiterated their points, that time barred reliefs cannot be allowed to be
incorporated by way of amendment; and that too, when the application for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
9 MP-5125-2025
amendment has not been signed by the plaintiff herself and the alleged power
of attorney holder, who has signed application filed under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code, his power of attorney has not been still taken on record, as
application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code is still pending. The
objections under Order II Rule 2 of the Code were raised before the learned
trial Court, but not considered, therefore, the order passed by the Court
below is bad in law and requires to be quashed by allowing the petitions.
6. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at Bar and
perused the record.
7. The law with regard to amendment in the pleadings is not res
judicata and what can be deduced from various judgments passed by the
Apex Court is that rule for considerations while dealing with the amendment
application are that (i) it is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of
the case; (ii) it is bona fide and is not of such a nature which would prejudice
to the other side, which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of
money; (iii) whether refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation; and (iv) whether the proposed amendment
changes nature and character of the case. These are some of the important
factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code; and these are only illustrative and not
exhaustive.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that Regular Civil Suit No.1228-A of
2021 filed on 09.11.2021 for reliefs of declaration of title, permanent and
mandatory injunction, possession and other consequential reliefs pertaining
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
10 MP-5125-2025
to immovable properties and other movable properties; and Regular Civil
Suit No.699-A of 2023 filed on 03.01.2022 for the reliefs of declaration of
title, permanent and mandatory injunction, possession and other
consequential reliefs pertaining to movable properties i.e. shares, incomes,
share certificates, original documents etc. were dismissed on 14.05.2022 by
rejecting their plaints by the learned trial Court while allowing the aforesaid
applications filed on behalf of the petitioner (s) and respondents No.2 and 3
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and it is also not in dispute that these
orders for rejection of plaint (s) were challenged before this Court in First
Appeal No.799 of 2021 and First Appeal No.1021 of 2022 and vide
judgment dated 09.05.2023 both the appeals were allowed and civil suits
were restored to their original number by remanding back to the learned trial
Court.
9. The provision as contained in Order VI Rules 16 and 17 of the
Code provides wide powers to the Court to allow the amendment of
pleadings at any stage of proceedings and while interpreting the aforesaid
provisions, Hon’ble the Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the
legislative intent is that substantial justice should be served, multiplicity of
litigation should be avoided, real question in controversy must be determined
and hyper technicalities should be avoided. It is well settled that merits of
amendment are to be tested only during course of trial, after the amendment
is allowed and incorporated in the pleadings. The general rule with regard to
amendment is that it should be permitted unless it causes injustice to the
defendant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
11 MP-5125-2025
10. In this regard, relevant paragraph of judgment delivered by the
Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited and another (supra) may be profitably reproduced,
which as under: –
“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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
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
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.”
11. In the present case, the first and foremost objection from the
petitioner’s side is that the amendment application has not been signed by the
plaintiff herself, it is signed and produced by the power of attorney holder
and the power of attorney holder has not been taken on record so far by the
learned trial Court, therefore, the application filed by the power of attorney
holder could not have been considered. The power of attorney holder does
not require leave of the Court to make an application on behalf of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
12 MP-5125-2025
principal. The only requirement is that authorization has been by the
principal and it is genuine one.
12. In the instant case, principal – plaintiff Smt. Jyotsana Sanghi D/o
Late Sharad Kumar Sanghi has nowhere disputed that she has not appointed
Ravish Bafna, as her power of attorney to take part in the suit pending before
the Court, rather it is apparent that she has supported that Ravish Bafna is her
power of attorney.
13. The law does not say anything about the fact that once suit has
been filed by the principal himself / herself, during course of pendency of the
suit or proceedings, power of attorney holder cannot be introduced. Section
2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 says that every act done by the power
of attorney holder is effectual in law, as act of principal. Order III Rule 2 of
the Code provides about recognized agents and power of attorney holder is
among one of such recognized agents. Order III Rule 1 of the Code
authorizes a recognized agent to make application on behalf of the party.
Proviso to Order VI Rule 14 of the Code provides that an authorized person
can sign pleadings on behalf of any person duly authorized by the principal
and such person may sue or defend on behalf of the principal.
13.1 From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, no iota of doubt
remains that power of attorney holder can appear on behalf of the principal
and file an application and also prosecute the legal cases / proceedings.
14. The only question which has been put under dispute is that an
application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code wherewith the power of
attorney given by plaintiff Smt. Jyotsana Sanghi D/o Late Sharad Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
13 MP-5125-2025
Sanghi has been sought to be brought on record, has not been allowed so far;
and in the meantime, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code
filed and signed by the power of attorney holder has been allowed.
15. But in the factual matrix of this case, this Court is of the view that
the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner (s) has no force, as the
plaintiff has never disputed the act of the power of attorney in filing
amendment application and also prosecuting the same. Hence, this objection
raised on behalf of the petitioner (s) is of no consequence and has no bearing
on the disputed / impugned order passed under Rule VI Rule 17 of the Code.
16. As far as the objection with regard to the limitation is concerned,
the petitioner (s) drawing attention of this Court towards cause of action
mentioned in the suit and also inviting attention of this Court towards
Section 3 and Entry 58 of Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 have
submitted that reliefs claimed are barred by limitation, therefore, amendment
should not have been allowed. The objections raised in this regard have
been refuted by the counter arguments raised on behalf of the plaintiff.
17. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code filed on behalf of the petitioner (s) and
respondents No.2 and 3 on various grounds has been rejected by order of this
Court. The necessary corollary of the rejection of the aforesaid applications
is that grounds taken in the present suit have at least some substance.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pankaja & another v.
Yellappa (dead) by LRs. and others (supra) in similar situation has held that
amendment sought could not be declined as the main purpose of allowing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
14 MP-5125-2025
amendment is to minimize the litigation; relevant paragraph 17 runs, as
under: –
“17. Factually in this case, in regard to the stand of the
defendants that the declaration sought by the appellants
is barred by limitation, there is dispute and it is not an
admitted fact. While the learned counsel for the
defendant-respondents pleaded that under Entry 58 of
the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the declaration
sought for by the appellants in this case ought to have
been done within 3 years when the right to sue first
accrued, the appellant-plaintiff contends that the same
does not fall under the said entry but falls under Entry
64 or 65 of the said Schedule of the Limitation Act
which provides for a limitation of 12 years, therefore,
according to them the prayer for declaration of title is
not barred by limitation, therefore, both the courts
below have seriously erred in not considering this
question before rejecting the prayer for amendment. In
such a situation where there is a dispute as to the bar of
limitation this Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D.
John v. S. Rayappan, 2001 (2) SCC 472 , has held :-
“The amendment sought could not be
declined. The dominant purpose of allowing
the amendment is to minimise the litigation.
The plea that the relief sought by way of
amendment was barred by time is arguable in
the circumstances of the case. The plea of
limitation being disputed could be made a
subject-matter of the issue after allowing the
amendment prayed for.”
19. In the instant case also, it is arguable whether the reliefs sought are
really barred by limitation. The plea of limitation being disputed could be
made a subject matter of issue, after allowing the amendments prayed for.
Hence, the objection with regard to limitation raised by the petitioner (s) is
also found not having much force.
20. The objection with regard to provision of Order II Rule 2 of the
Code operates as a bar on the subsequent suit and the field of amendment of
pleadings falls beyond its purview. The same view has been taken by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
15 MP-5125-2025
Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited and another (supra); para 71.1 is reproduced, as
under: –
“71.1 Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a 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
2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.”
20.1 In the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court as
quoted herein above, the objection raised with regard to the hindrance of
Order II Rule 2 of the Code, is also not sustainable.
21. As far as further objection with regard to retraction of admissions
in the earlier suit is concerned, is also not having much force coupled with
the fact that right of consequential amendment is still open for the petitioner
(s).
22. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
(s) are passed on the facts of aforesaid cases wherein the judgment has been
passed which in considered view of this Court, cannot be applied in the
instant case to quash the impugned order passed by the Court below,
whereby amendment proposed on behalf of the plaintiff has been allowed.
23. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India do not want to interfere in the impugned order to
correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than one taken
by the Court below is possible, as no patent perversity or a gross and
manifest failure of justice has been found by passing the impugned order.
24. Accordingly, these petitions being devoid of any substances fail
and are hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4552
16 MP-5125-2025
Let signed copy of this order be kept in Miscellaneous Petition
No.5912 of 2025 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of connected
petition.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/13/2026
1:52:43 PM