Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Kirti vs Smt. Vasundhara (2026:Rj-Jd:14842) on 18 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14842]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25085/2025
Smt. Kirti D/o Late Shri Karan Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Jodhpur Thikana, Rao Raja Uday Singh Ji Haveli,
Ghodon Ka Chowk, Inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Vasundhara W/o Shri Shakti Singh Shekhawat D/o
Late Shri Laxman Singh, Resident Of 252, Officers
Campus, Janak Marg, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Anajdraj Kanwar W/o Late Shri Uday Singh, (Died
During Pendency Of Suit).
3. Smt. Aarti Singh W/o Late Shri Karan Singh Rathor, (Died
During Pendency Of Suit).
4. Hamir Singh S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Rathor, Resident
Of Hal Care Of 56 Apo 22 Grenadiers.
5. Smt. Krishna Kumari W/o Shri Surendra Singh D/o Shri
Udai Singh, Resident Of Uday Bhawan, Ghodon Ka Chowk,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta assisted by Mr. Zubin
Ahmed, Mr. V.D. Gaur and Mr. Tanay
Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi with Mr.
Mahendra Thanvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
18/03/2026
1. The petitioner-defendant has filed present writ petition
challenging the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annx.7) passed by the
Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Suit
No.21/2024 (N.C.V. No. 10731/2014), titled ‘Smt. Vasundhara vs.
Smt. Anandraj Kaur & Ors.’, whereby the applications filed by
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (2 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint and the
rejoinder to the written statement, were allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
No.1-plaintiff instituted a suit for partition of alleged joint
ancestral properties, claiming equal shares among legal heirs,
whereas, the defendants contended that a valid partition had
already taken place during the ancestor’s lifetime. After the
commencement of trial, the plaintiff moved two separate
applications to amend the plaint and rejoinder based on later
obtained documents. The applications were opposed on grounds of
delay and lack of due diligence, but the trial court allowed the
amendments.
4. It is submitted that impugned order dated 28.11.2025 is
illegal, perverse and beyond jurisdiction, as the trial court
exercised its powers under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. in
contravention of the mandatory proviso, which prohibits
amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial unless
due diligence is demonstrated. In the present case, trial
commenced with issues framed on 10.12.2007 and the plaintiff’s
affidavit in evidence was filed on 21.10.2013, substantially limiting
the court’s discretion. It is contended that the trial court recorded
that the plaintiff had failed to exercise due diligence and that the
amendment applications were filed after undue delay, yet the
amendments were allowed without any cogent reasoning,
rendering the order self-contradictory and legally unsustainable.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (3 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
5. It is further submitted that the trial court failed to apply the
settled legal principles regarding amendments post-trial
commencement. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. is
mandatory and restricts the court’s jurisdiction unless a specific
finding is recorded that, despite due diligence, the matter could
not have been raised earlier. The applications do not address
necessity, relevance or nexus with the issues already framed. But
the trial court, instead of analyzing these aspects, granted
amendments based on general observations, without applying
judicial mind to the facts, stage of trial or prejudice to the
petitioner, resulting in a non-speaking and arbitrary order.
6. It is contended that proposed amendments are substantive,
introducing new facts and filling lacunae after nearly eighteen
years of litigation, which is impermissible. Allowing such belated
amendments defeats the purpose of the proviso and undermines
procedural discipline. It is argued that impugned order has been,
thus, passed mechanically and without proper application of mind,
without recording the mandatory satisfaction, and in disregard of
statutory limitations, which causes serious prejudice to the
petitioner and results in a miscarriage of justice rendering the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. ineffective.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following decisions in support of his contentions :-
i. Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padamlatha & Anr.
reported in 2009(1) Supreme 238
ii. Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit
Mahale & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 189 of
2020) decided on 10.01.2020
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (4 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
iii. Smt. Meera Ben vs. Amritlal & Anr.
reported in 2015 Supreme (Raj) 100
iv. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs.
Rent Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors. reported in
2016 Supreme (Raj) 376
v. Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors.
reported in 2006 Supreme (SC) 1272
vi. Mehar Dutt & Ors. vs. Yog Raj & Ors.
reported in 2024(2) Civil Court Cases 430
(H.P.)
vii. Jaiwant Singh vs. Man Mohan Singh & Ors.
reported in 2010 Supreme (UK) 331
viii. Maniza Jumabhoy vs. Ahmed Nawaz
Alladdin & Ors. (Civil Revision Petition No.
1036/2022) decided on 14.06.2022
ix. Smt. Pallavi Gautam vs. Ramnarayan
reported in 2018 Supreme (Raj) 1644
x. Jameel Mohd. vs. Durgesh & ors. reported
2014(2) CurCC 409
xi. Luta Ram and Ors. vs. Smt. Champa Devi
and Ors. reported in 2016 Supreme (Raj)
516
xii. Smt. Kala Devi vs. Praveen Surana & Anr.
reported in 2017 AIR CC 2958 (Raj)
xiii. Ramesh Duggal alias Pappu vs. Pt. Ram
Shanker Mishra Trust Chief Office reported
in 2023 Supreme (All) 705
xiv. Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others reported in
2024 Supreme (SC) 170
8. In contrast, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff,
while supporting the impugned order, submits that applications
seeking amendments under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section
151 of C.P.C. were filed at the earliest opportunity after obtaining
crucial documents unavailable at the time of the original plaint and
rejoinder. It is contended that amendments were necessary to
effectively determine real controversy and ensure complete
adjudication of rights relating to the joint ancestral properties,
including the Haveli at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and the Garh (Rawla)
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (5 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
at Village Surayta. It is further submitted that amendments did
not alter the nature of the suit or prejudice the petitioner and
sufficient opportunity has been given to contest newly
incorporated facts. It is contended that the trial court carefully
considered objections regarding delay and due diligence and
granted amendments with appropriate conditions, including costs.
It is submitted that amendments should be allowed to facilitate
justice and resolve the real dispute, even post-trial
commencement, provided no undue prejudice is caused.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, in support of his
contention, has relied upon the following decisions :-
i. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
another reported in (2022) 0 AIR (SC)
4256
ii. Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Buta Singh reported in
(2018) AIR (SCW) 2635
iii. Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani
Mehra reported in (2017) AIR (SCW) 5822
10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties,
perused the material available on record and the judgments cited
at Bar.
11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court,
on one hand, recorded that the plaintiff did not act with due
diligence and that the applications were filed after considerable
delay, but on the other hand, allowed the amendment
applications.
12. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. clearly mandates
that once the trial has commenced, no application for amendment
shall be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (6 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before commencement of trial. The requirement of recording a
specific finding on “due diligence” is, thus, a jurisdictional pre-
condition.
13. In the present case, the findings recorded appear to be
contradictory, inasmuch as lack of due diligence has been noticed,
yet the amendment has been allowed without assigning cogent
reasons as to how the statutory requirement stands satisfied. In
the opinion of this Court, an examination of the merits of the
amendment applications at this stage would be unwarranted,
given the inconsistent findings recorded by the learned trial court
while allowing the said amendment.
14. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit that the matter
requires reconsideration by the trial court in accordance with law,
by passing a reasoned and speaking order after specifically
dealing with the requirement of due diligence, the stage of trial,
nature of amendment and its necessity for adjudication of the real
controversy.
15. Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by
the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
trial court.
16. The trial court is directed to re-examine the applications filed
by respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C. afresh and pass a detailed, reasoned and
speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within
four weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment,
without being influenced by the earlier order.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14842] (7 of 7) [CW-25085/2025]
17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the amendment applications and all
issues are left open to be decided by the trial court.
18. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
19. Stay petition as well as all pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
183-/Inder//-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 06:09:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
