Man Singh vs Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar … on 19 March, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Man Singh vs Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar … on 19 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:14101]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3268/2026

Man Singh S/o Gulab Singh Ji Rao, Aged About 61 Years,
Resident Of Rao Maadada (Bhat Maadada), Tehsil Gogunda,
District Udaipur Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar W/o Sh. Bhawani Singh Ji Rao, Resident
Of Rao Maadada (Bhat Maadada), Tehsil Gogunda, District
Udaipur Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mrs. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Apeksha Chhangani assisted by
                                Ms. Prenal Lodha through VC



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

19/03/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

plaintiff laying a challenge to the order dated 28.01.2026 (Annx.7)

passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Udaipur in Civil

Regular Suit No. 125/2022 (C.I.S. No. 1320/2024) titled as ‘Gulab

Singh & Anr. vs. Bhagwati Kunwar’ whereby, applications filed

under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on

27.11.2025 and 14.01.2026 seeking amendment of the plaint,

have been rejected.

2. The facts, in short, are that a civil suit originally filed by

Gulab Singh and Man Singh; now continued solely by Man Singh

as Gulab Singh has passed away. The plaintiff claims sole

ownership of property of Devi Singh; asserting Kesar Bai (widow

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (2 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

of predeceased son Jorawar Singh) had only maintenance rights

and was never remain possession of any portion of the suit

property. It was submitted that Kesar Bai had earlier filed a suit on

13.01.1975, which was decided on the basis of compromise,

wherein she presented an application in the suit stating that she

had no rights in the suit property and had only maintenance rights

against Gulab Singh. The compromise confirmed that she had no

claim, but revenue records erroneously showed her name. It was

further submitted that Kesar Bai allegedly executed gift deed

dated 19.08.1982 in favour of Shambu Singh and later, sale deed

dated 01.02.2007 in favor of respondent-defendant. The plaintiff

has claimed the same as null and void. The respondent-defendant

contended that Kesar Bai had possession, valid rights in suit

property and that sale deed was lawful; however, disputes some

family details and adoption claim. During pendency of the suit, the

petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment in suit to also challenge gift

deed dated 19.08.1982 but the trial court rejected amendment

applications, citing delay and change in suit’s nature vide order

dated 28.01.2026, which is impugned herein.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of

the amendment applications on the ground of delay is entirely

unjustified. No prejudice is caused to the respondents, and

substantial justice requires that the amendment should be

allowed.

5. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment does

not alter the nature of the suit. It merely seeks to declare the gift

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (3 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

deed dated 19.08.1982 null and void, similar to the already

challenged sale deed dated 01.02.2007 executed by the same

person over the same property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that denial

of the amendment would compel the petitioner to file a separate

suit, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and potential

inconsistent findings, which is contrary to the settled principle that

procedural law should facilitate, and not obstruct, justice.

7. It is contended that prior litigation and compromise,

including Kesar Bai’s renunciation of rights and the dismissal of

Shambu Singh’s suit, underscore the necessity of allowing the

amendment to conclusively resolve the dispute. The gift deed has

already been referenced in the plaint and the proposed

amendment is merely consequential and clarificatory, causing no

injustice to the respondents.

8. It is also submitted that the respondent-defendant herself

has admitted the execution of the gift deed. Therefore, the

subsequent sale deed by the same person is invalid, further

reinforcing the necessity of the amendment.

9. It is contended that the trial court adopted an unduly hyper-

technical approach, overlooking the fundamental principle that

procedural law exists to advance justice, not to frustrate

substantive rights. Therefore, it is urged that impugned order

dated 28.01.2026 demonstrates a failure to exercise discretion

under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and hence, same being

arbitrary and unlawful, passed without proper consideration, is

liable to be set aside.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (4 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

10. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the

petitioner on the following judgments :-

i. Revajeetu Builders and Developers (M/s)
vs. M/s Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors.

reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 1156;

ii. Kamal Kishore Prasad vs. Sri Lal Kumar
Rai reported in Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No.
657 of 2017;

iii. Pankaja and Another vs. Yellappa (dead)
by LR’s and Others reported in (2004) 6
Supreme Court Cases 415;

iv. Ashok Rathi and Others vs. Kartar Chand
and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online
MP 217;

v. Abdul Rehman and Another vs. Mohd.

Ruldu and Others reported in (2012) 11
Supreme Court Cases 341; and
vi. Kamal Kishore Prasad vs. Sri Lal Kumar
Rai & Ors. (Civil Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction No. 654/2017) decided on
12.06.2024 (Patna High Court).

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that

the petitioner lacks locus standi, having failed to establish a valid

adoption under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance

Act, 1956. The alleged Adoption Deed dated 09.04.1996 is not

legally enforceable. Therefore, the petitioner possesses no title,

interest or enforceable rights in the suit property.

12. It is submitted that the properties of Late Devi Singh and

Late Gulab Singh devolved upon Smt. Kesar Bai and her daughter,

Smt. Mohan Kanwar, to the extent of a 1/2 share. The petitioner is

neither a coparcener nor an adopted son of Late Gulab Singh.

Further, the petitioner has failed to implead Smt. Mohan Kanwar, a

necessary party, thereby rendering the suit defective and

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (5 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

incapable of adjudication. It is contended that the suit property

was lawfully sold by Smt. Kesar Bai to the respondent on

01.02.2007 through a duly registered sale deed for valid

consideration. All procedural formalities, including verification by

the Registration Officer, affixation of photograph and thumb

impression, were properly complied with. The allegations of

impersonation are therefore wholly baseless. The respondent,

being a bona fide purchaser, has been in lawful possession since

2007, while the petitioner has never possessed the property.

13. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment

applications filed by the petitioner are belated, having been

submitted after a lapse of 18 years, at a stage when plaintiff

evidence is complete and the matter is fixed for defendant

evidence. The proposed amendments are neither necessary for

resolving the real controversy nor integral to the suit, as they

relate to facts known to the petitioner at the time of institution of

the suit. Permitting such amendments would prejudice the

respondent, alter the nature of the suit, and contravene the

purpose and intent of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

14. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s attempt to

challenge the gift deed dated 19.08.1982 after 33 years is

arbitrary, lacking specificity and unsupported by evidence. No

proof has been presented to establish that the property gifted in

1982 is the same as that sold in 2007. Therefore, it is urged that

impugned order does not exhibit any perversity or patent illegality.

Lastly, it is submitted that allowing the amendments at this stage

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (6 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

would result in multiplicity of proceedings and cause undue

prejudice to the respondent.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj vs. Indira and

Others reported in (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 705.

16. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties,

perused the material available on record and gone through the

judgments cited at Bar.

17. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and the

material on record, the court observes that the petitioner seeks to

amend the plaint to include a declaration regarding the gift deed

dated 19.08.1982 executed by Smt. Kesar Bai in favour of

Shambhu Singh as null and void. The amendment appears to be

sought to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that all

claims concerning the same property are adjudicated in a single

proceeding.

18. It is noted that the trial court, in the impugned order dated

28.01.2026, has rejected the amendment primarily on the

grounds of delay and purported change in the nature of the suit.

However, the petitioner has demonstrated that the facts pertaining

to the gift deed were already referred in the plaint, and that the

amendment is purely consequential and clarificatory. No prejudice

would be caused to the respondent by allowing the amendment,

whereas, refusal would compel the petitioner to institute a

separate suit, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and potential

inconsistent findings.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (7 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

19. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers (M/s) (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“Whether Amendment is Necessary to Decide Real Controversy :

61. The first condition which must be satisfied before the
amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such
amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question
in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment
cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the
courts’ discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment.
No Prejudice or Injustice to other Party :

62. The other important condition which should govern the
discretion of the Court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice
which is likely to be caused to other side. Ordinarily, if other side is
compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice
hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side.

63. The Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of
amendment of pleadings but court’s powers must be exercised
judiciously and with great care.

64. In Ganga Bai’s case (supra), this Court has rightly observed:

“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.”

Costs :

65. The Courts have consistently laid down that for unnecessary
delay and inconvenience, the opposite party must be compensated
with costs. The imposition of costs is an important judicial exercise
particularly when the courts deal with the cases of amendment. The
costs cannot and should not be imposed arbitrarily. In our view, the
following parameters must be taken into consideration while
imposing the costs. These factors are illustrative in nature and not
exhaustive.

(i) At what stage the amendment was sought?

(ii) While imposing the costs, it should be taken into
consideration whether the amendment has been sought at a
pre-trial or post-trial stage;

(iii)The financial benefit derived by one party at the cost of
other party should be properly calculated in terms of
money and the costs be awarded accordingly.

(iv) The imposition of costs should not be symbolic but
realistic;

(v) The delay and inconvenience caused to the opposite
side must be clearly evaluated in terms of additional and
extra court hearings compelling the opposite party to bear
the extra costs.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (8 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

(vi) In case of appeal to higher courts, the victim of
amendment is compelled to bear considerable additional
costs.

All these aspects must be carefully taken into considera- tion
while awarding the costs.

66. The purpose of imposing costs is to:

a) Discourage malafide amendments designed to delay the
legal proceedings;

b) Compensate the other party for the delay and the
inconvenience caused;

c) Compensate the other party for avoidable expenses on
the litigation which had to be incurred by opposite party
for opposing the amendment; and

d) To send a clear message that the parties have to be
careful while drafting the original pleadings.

Factors to be taken into Consideration while Dealing with
Applications for Amendments :

67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some
basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration
while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment.
(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
and effective adjudication of the case?

(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide?

(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
terms of money;

(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;

(5) Whether the proposed amendment con- stitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the
case? And
(6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments
if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application.

68. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in
mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17.
These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

69. The decision on an application made under Order VI Rule 17 is
a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never
be undertaken in a casual manner.

70. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while
deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse
bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and
should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest
amendments.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaja and another

(supra) has held as under :-

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (9 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

“12. So far as the Court’s jurisdiction to allow an amendment of
pleadings is concerned there can be no two opinion that the same
is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there
has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications.

This Court in numerous cases has held the dominant purpose of
allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation, therefore, if
the facts of the case so permits, it is always open to the court to
allow applications in spite of the delay and latches in moving such
amendment application.

13. But the question for our consideration is whether in cases
where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of
expiry of the period of the period of limitation prescribed in law,
can the court in the exercise of its discretion take away the right
accrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments?

14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that
there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred
because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed.
Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of
the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment
being discretionary the same will have to be exercised in a
judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the
amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really
subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation
the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket
formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings.
Each case depends on the factual background of that case.

15. This Court in the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co. – A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 357 has held :-

“16. It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule,
decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the
amended claim would be barred by limitation on the
date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken
into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether
amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the
power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the
interests of justice.”

16. This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a 3
Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundry Co.
Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 392.
Therefore, an application for amendment of the pleading should
not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground that
the same is barred by limitation, on the contrary, application will
have to be considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested
with the Court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in the
interest of justice.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Kishore Prasad

(supra) has summarized the legal principles as regards

amendment in the pleadings and has held as under :-

“13. In sum and substance, if the amendment is necessary for
deciding the real controversy between the parties and for arriving at

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (10 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late
stage. The law on this point has been settled by various decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and recently in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd.,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court summarized the law on the point of amendment in paragraph
70 in the following manner :

“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II 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 II Rule 2
CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties, and

(ii) 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 does 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).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required
to be allowed unless

(i) 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,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.

(v) 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.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (11 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

(vi) 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.

(vii) 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.

(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed
where it is intended to rectify the absence of material
particulars in the plaint.

(ix) 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.

(x) 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.

(xi) 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, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
1897)”

14. From the facts of the case before me, it is much apparent that
the amendment has been sought after the evidence of plaintiffs
started, but it is the suit of plaintiffs and if any delay is caused,
ultimately the plaintiffs would be sufferer. It could not be said that
allowing the amendment at this stage would not cause prejudice to
the other side. However, if the other side could be compensated in
terms of cost, the amendment could be allowed. Moreover, it is for
the Court to decide that such amendment would enable the court to
consider the dispute between the parties in true perspective and
would help it in arriving at a right decision and allow it to
determine the real question in controversy. Further, if such
amendment avoids multiplicity of litigation, then these amendments
need to be allowed.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (12 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

15. So far as the finding of the learned trial court regarding change
in the nature of the suit is concerned, I think the same is
misconceived. If the amendment is not allowed, it will lead to
unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. The amendments also appear
to be necessary for the purpose of determination of real controversy
between the parties. However, for putting the defendants to undue
harassment, I think the defendants should be amply compensated.

16. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I think the learned trial
court committed an error of jurisdiction when it refused to allow
the amendment petition and rejected the same. Hence, I do not find
the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 to be sustainable in the eyes
of law and, accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the
application dated 14.09.2016 filed before the learned trial court is
allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand
only) to be paid by the plaintiff/petitioner to the contesting
defendant/respondent on the first date before the learned trial court
after passing of this judgment.

In Ashok Rathi and others (supra), the Madhya Pradesh

High Court has held as under :-

“9. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held by the
Apex Court that when the amendment sought is only in 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. In the present case also, the amendment sought for by
plaintiffs is for claiming an additional relief on the basis of already
existing averments and no new facts are sought to be introduced.
The same in view of the aforesaid decision deserved to be and has
rightly been allowed.

10. In Basavaraj (supra), which is a decision of a two Judge Bench,
relied upon by the learned counsel for defendants No.4 to 7,
amendment was primarily disallowed on the ground that the same
was proposed at the stage of final hearing of the suit and permitting
the same would have caused prejudice to the defendants. It was on
the assumption that the relief claimed for would be barred by time
since with passage of time, right had accrued in favour of the
defendants and permitting amendment would cause prejudice to
them. However, there was no discussion as regards whether the
amendment, if permitted, would relate back to the date of filing of
the suit or would be relatable to the date on which the application
was filed.

11. In L.J. Leach and Company Limited and Another Vs. Jardine
Skinner and Company, AIR 1957 SC 357, which is a decision of a
four Judge Bench, it was held by the Apex Court that no doubt
Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments if a fresh suit
on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of
the application, but that is a factor to be taken into account in
exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be
ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that
is required in the interest of justice. In the present case, the fact
scenario which has emerged requires in the interest of justice that
the amendment prayed for by the plaintiffs should be allowed.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (13 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

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 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.

14. Consequently, it is held that the trial Court has not committed
any error in passing the impugned order allowing the application
for amendment filed by the plaintiffs. The said order is accordingly
affirmed. However, it is directed that so far as the relief which has
been sought for by plaintiffs by way of their amendment application
shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the
application for amendment was filed before the trial Court.”

20. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this

Court finds that the proposed amendment is necessary for

effective adjudication of the real controversy and is based on facts

already pleaded. It does not introduce a new cause of action but is

connected with the existing challenge to the sale deed, both

arising from the same transaction. Mere delay, in absence of

prejudice, is not a valid ground for rejection, particularly when

refusal would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Any prejudice to

the respondent can be addressed by permitting consequential

pleadings and framing appropriate issues. Hence, the trial court’s

rejection of the amendment on technical grounds is unsustainable

in law.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (14 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

21. Regarding the reliance placed by the respondent on

Basavaraj‘s case (supra), it is observed that said judgment dealt

with amendments that sought to introduce entirely new causes of

action which were unrelated to the prayer made in the original

suit. In contrast, the present amendment pertains to the same

property and arises from the same set of facts as already pleaded,

namely, the alleged invalidity of alienation by Smt. Kesar Bai. The

amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but seeks to

further clarify and complete the relief already claimed. Therefore,

the cited decision is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable

to the present case.

22. In light of the above, impugned order dated 28.01.2026,

which rejected the petitioner’s applications for amendment, is held

to be not in accordance with the settled principles of law regarding

amendments. However, considering the delay in seeking the

amendment and the stage at which such applications have been

filed, this Court deems it appropriate to compensate the

respondent for the inconvenience caused. Accordingly, the

petitioner is burdened with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000/-,

payable to the respondent. At the present, this Court has only

permitted the amendment. It shall, however, be open to the

defendants to carry out consequential amendments only to the

extent of amendment permitted in the plaint and to raise all

permissible objections, including the objection that the relief

sought to be introduced by way of amendment is barred by

limitation. In such an event, the learned Trial Court shall be at

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14101] (15 of 15) [CW-3268/2026]

liberty to frame an appropriate issue in this regard and decide the

same at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.

23. At the same time, the learned trial court is directed to

dispose of the suit on its own merit without being influenced by

any of the observations made above and expeditiously without

granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties since it is a

matter of 2008.

24. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 28.01.2026 is hereby set aside and the

trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to carry out

amendment in the plaint in accordance with Order VI Rule 17 of

C.P.C., subject to payment of the aforesaid costs of Rs. 15,000/-.

The said costs shall be paid within a period of two weeks from

today, failing which the benefit of this order shall not enure to the

petitioner. The trial court shall thereafter proceed with the matter

in accordance with law.

25. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
25-/Inder//-

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 01:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/04/2026 at 09:15:26 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)