Delhi High Court – Orders
Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur vs S. Maninder Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 9/2026 & I.A. 109/2026
MRS. GURDEEP KAUR .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Shiv Charah Garg and Mr. Imran
Khan Advocates, Advocates
versus
S. MANINDER SINGH & ANR ......Defendants
Through: Mr. Sunil Dutt, Advocate for D-1
Mr. Milind Srivastava, Advocate for
D-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 13.07.2026
I.A. 16309/2026
1. By way of the present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the plaintiff seeks
amendment of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking partition,
possession, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property
bearing K-67, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit
Property’).
3. Plaintiff and Defendants are real siblings, being the children of Late
S. Hanwant Singh and Late Smt. Rani Kaur. Plaintiff is one of the daughters
of Late S. Hanwant Singh. Defendant No.1 is the son of Late S. Hanwant
Singh, and Defendant No.2 is the other daughter of Late S. Hanwant Singh.
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 1 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Suit Property was owned by her
father, Late S. Hanwant Singh, who had purchased the same through a
registered Sale Deed dated 19.01.1974. It is stated that Late S. Hanwant
Singh had executed a registered Will dated 20.11.2015, whereby the Suit
Property was bequeathed equally in favour of his three children, namely the
Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2, subject to certain conditions.
It is stated that upon the demise of their mother on 10.01.2019 and the
subsequent demise of Late S. Hanwant Singh on 19.07.2025, the Plaintiff
claims that each of the three siblings became entitled to an undivided one-
third share in the Suit Property. The plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
No.1, who was residing in the Suit Property with their father, has failed to
acknowledge the Plaintiff’s share and has been attempting to deal with the
property to her exclusion. It is pleaded that despite requests for an amicable
partition and issuance of a legal notice, Defendant No.1 neither cooperated
nor responded. On these averments, the plaintiff has instituted the present
Suit seeking partition of the Suit Property by metes and bounds, possession
of her one-third share, declaration of her rights in terms of the Will dated
20.11.2015, and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
from creating any third-party rights or otherwise alienating the Suit
Property.
5. Summons in the Suit were issued on 06.01.2026. Written Statements
have been filed.
6. In the Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1 a preliminary
objection has been raised that the Plaintiff has suppressed material facts by
deliberately concealing that Late S. Hanwant Singh had, during his lifetime,
executed his last registered Will dated 13.05.2024, whereby the Suit
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 2 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
Property was bequeathed exclusively in favour of Defendant No.1. It is
stated that the said Will was executed voluntarily, while the testator was in a
sound disposing state of mind, and was duly attested by Defendant No.2 and
one Sh. Mukesh Gambhir. According to Defendant No.1, the said Will
expressly supersedes the earlier Will dated 20.11.2015 relied upon by the
Plaintiff and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the
Suit Property. It is further stated that under the subsequent Will, the plaintiff
and Defendant No.2 are only entitled to receive a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-
each in the event Defendant No.1 decides to sell the Suit Property.
Defendant No.1 has further stated that the Plaintiff was fully aware of the
execution of the Will dated 13.05.2024 and has intentionally concealed the
same while instituting the present Suit. It is stated that the Will dated
13.05.2024 came into operation upon the demise of Late S. Hanwant Singh
on 19.07.2025 and that Defendant No.1 became the sole and absolute owner
of the Suit Property thereunder.
7. These pleadings in the Written Statement constitute the very basis of
the present amendment application, as the Plaintiff seeks to incorporate
pleadings challenging the genuineness, validity and legality of the Will
dated 13.05.2024 and to seek consequential relief of declaration/cancellation
of the said Will, which was not part of the original plaint.
8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that when the present Suit
was filed, the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the alleged Will dated
13.05.2024. He states that the Suit was founded upon the earlier registered
Will dated 20.11.2015 under which the Suit Property devolved equally upon
the three siblings. He states that it is only after Defendant No.1 filed the
Written Statement that the existence of the subsequent Will dated
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 3 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
13.05.2024 came to light. He, therefore, states that the proposed amendment,
has become necessary to effectively adjudicate the real controversy between
the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for Defendant No.1 opposes the present
application by contending that the Plaintiff was always aware of the
execution of the Will dated 13.05.2024 and has deliberately suppressed the
same. It is submitted that the amendment seeks to introduce an altogether
new and inconsistent cause of action and cannot be permitted. It is further
submitted that the application lacks bona fides and ought to be dismissed.
10. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
11. 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.
12. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17
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 EasternCS(OS) 9/2026 Page 4 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
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
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:
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 5 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
“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
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
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 6 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
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
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
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 7 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
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.”……”
*****
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.
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 8 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
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.”
13. 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:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
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 6 Rule 17CPC.
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) 9/2026 Page 9 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
(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) 9/2026 Page 10 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
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) 9/2026 Page 11 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
Del 1897] .)”
14. The settled principles governing amendment of pleadings are that the
Court should ordinarily adopt a liberal approach, unless the amendment
introduces a completely new and inconsistent case, causes irreparable
prejudice incapable of being compensated in costs, or is barred by law.
Where the amendment is necessary for complete and effective adjudication
of the dispute, it ought ordinarily to be allowed.
15. In the present case, the original suit has been filed seeking partition,
declaration and consequential reliefs on the basis of the registered Will dated
20.11.2015, under which the Plaintiff claims one-third share in the suit
property.
16. Defendant No.1, in his Written Statement, has for the first time set up
a subsequent registered Will dated 13.05.2024, whereby the entire Suit
property is alleged to have been bequeathed exclusively in his favour while
providing only a monetary benefit of Rs.25,00,000/- each to the Plaintiff and
Defendant No.2 in the event of sale of the property. The Written Statement
further states that the said Will supersedes and expressly revokes the earlier
Will dated 20.11.2015.
17. Evidently, the defence set up by Defendant No.1 fundamentally alters
the nature of the controversy originally pleaded. The validity and
genuineness of the alleged Will dated 13.05.2024 now assume central
importance. Unless the Plaintiff is permitted to challenge the said Will
within the present proceedings, the Court would be unable to
comprehensively adjudicate the rights of the parties in the Suit Property.
18. The objection of Defendant No.1 that the amendment introduces a
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 12 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
new cause of action does not merit acceptance. The cause of action
continues to arise out of the competing claims of succession to the estate of
Late S. Hanwant Singh. The proposed amendment merely seeks to meet the
defence introduced by Defendant No.1 and is directly consequential thereto.
It neither changes the basic nature of the suit nor substitutes the original
cause of action.
19. It is also relevant that the present Suit is still at the pre-trial stage.
Issues have not yet been framed and evidence has not commenced. No
prejudice would, therefore, be caused to the Defendants if the amendment is
permitted. The Defendants would have full opportunity to file an additional
Written Statement and contest the amended pleadings.
20. The contention of Defendant No.1 that the plaintiff had prior
knowledge of the Will dated 13.05.2024 is a disputed question of fact. At
the stage of considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the
Court is not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the
proposed pleadings. The merits of the allegations relating to the Will are
matters to be decided during trial on the basis of evidence.
21. The proposed amendments are, therefore, found to be necessary for
determining the real controversy between the parties and for avoiding
multiplicity of litigation. In the opinion of this Court, the amendments
neither fundamentally alter the character of the suit nor cause any prejudice
to the Defendants which cannot be compensated by granting liberty to file
consequential pleadings.
22. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed.
23. The amended Plaint is taken on record.
24. The Defendants are granted 30 days to file their amended Written
CS(OS) 9/2026 Page 13 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
Statement, if required.
25. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the rival claims, and all rights and contentions of the parties,
including the objections regarding limitation, maintainability, genuineness
of the alleged Will, and entitlement to the reliefs claimed, are kept open for
consideration at the appropriate stage.
I.A. 5163/2026
1. The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section
151 of the CPC has been filed by the Defendant No.1 for setting aside the
Order dated 06.01.2026 passed by this Court.
2. A copy of the present application is being handed over to the learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff today in Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks some time to file a reply to the
present application.
4. Let a reply be filed within a period of two weeks. Response thereto, if
any, before the next date of hearing.
5. Pleading in I.A. 16309/2026 be also completed before the next date of
hearing so that issue regarding the stay can be finalized by the Court.
6. List on 16.09.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 13, 2026
RahulCS(OS) 9/2026 Page 14 of 14
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 20/07/2026 at 20:40:08
