Suman Randhawa vs Sh. Maldeep Sekhon & Ors on 28 April, 2026

May 9, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Suman Randhawa vs Sh. Maldeep Sekhon & Ors on 28 April, 2026

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

                          $~15
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(OS) 138/2019 & I.A. 20049/2025
                                    SUMAN RANDHAWA                                                                           .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:
                                                                  versus
                                    SH. MALDEEP SEKHON & ORS.                                                              .....Defendants
                                                                  Through:            Ms.Seema Seth, Ms. Kashish Jain, Sh
                                                                                      Sourav Kumar, Advs.
                                                                                      Mr Saurabh Sharma Advocate with
                                                                                      Mr Dharmendra Advocate and Mr
                                                                                      Siddhant Singh Advocate for D-2 &
                                                                                      D-3
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
                                                                  ORDER

                          %                                       28.04.2026
                          CS (OS) 138/2019

1. Vide Order dated 17.10.2025, this Court had directed parties to
approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility
of arriving at an amicable settlement.

2. Today, it is stated in unison that despite best efforts, mediation has
failed. In view of the same, this Court shall take up the interim applications
pending disposal, so that the matter can proceed ahead.

SPONSORED

I.A. 12598/2025

3. The present Application under Section 151 of the CPC has been filed
Defendants No. 1(a) and 1(b), seeking modification of the Order dated

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 1 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
26.09.2024 passed by this Court, in reference to the vehicle being Hyundai
Verna Car Model 2015 bearing Registration No. DL 7 CT 5536 [“vehicle in
question”].

4. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Defendants No. 1(a) and
1(b) that since the mediation has failed, liberty is sought for filing an
affidavit stating that the vehicle in question be scrapped..

5. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

6. Let the affidavit be filed before the next date of hearing.

7. The Application is accordingly disposed of.

I.A. 415/2024

8. The present Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with
Section 151 of the CPC has been filed by the Defendants No. 1(a) and 1(b),
alleging willful disobedience on part of the Plaintiff, of the Order dated
07.03.2019 passed by this Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the
CPC, which was further modified vide the Orders dated 08.05.2019,
07.11.2019, 12.12.2019 and 01.11.2023 passed by this Court.

9. Learned Counsel for the Defendants No. 1(a) and 1(b) states that she
is not pressing the present Application at this juncture and seeks liberty to
file a fresh Application with better particulars with proper indication of the
nature of relief being claimed.

10. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

11. The present Application is disposed of as not pressed.

I.A. 16955/2019

12. The present Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 2 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.

13. The present Suit is one for partition, permanent injunction and
rendition of accounts, in respect of the estate/Suit Properties belonging to
and left behind by Late Sh. Balwant Singh Sekhon, Late Smt. Balwant Kaur
Sekhon and B.S. Sekhon (HUF).

14. The facts of the case, as discernible from the Plaint, are that the
Plaintiff and deceased Defendant No.1 are the children of Late Sh. B.S.
Sekhon and Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon, Defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law
of the Sh. B.S. Sekhon and Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon, Defendant No.3 is the
widow of the pre-deceased son of Late Sh. Bipan Sekhon and the Defendant
No.4 is son of the pre-deceased son of Late Shri Bipan Sekhon.

15. The moveable and immoveable properties owned by Late Sh. Balwant
Singh Sekhon are as under:-

i. C-170, Madhuban Colony, Delhi – 110092 admeasuring 387 sq.
yards, comprising a ground floor, first floor and second floor
owned by Late Sh. Balwant Singh Sekhon, the father of the
Plaintiff.

ii. SF Account no. 2572000100004030 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuban Branch, New Delhi.
iii. FDR No. 257200TR00004802 maintained with Punjab National
Bank, Madhuban Branch, New Delhi.

iv. Pension Account no. 55113330239 maintained with SBI Bank,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

16. The moveable and immoveable properties owned by Late Smt. B.K.
Sekhon are as under:-

i. C-206, Icon Apartments, Greater Noida, U.P.

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 3 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
ii. SF Account no. 2572000100031810 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan Branch.

iii. Account No. 10137332528 maintained with SBI Bank,
Madhuban, New Delhi.

17. The abovementioned properties owned by Late Shri B.S. Sekhon and
Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon shall be collectively referred to as the “Suit
Properties”.

18. Lastly, the immovable and movable properties owned by Late Sh.
Balwant Singh Sekhon (HUF) [“HUF Properties”] are as under:-

i. Office no. 1, 3rd floor, Tower no. II, C-25, Stellar IT Park,
Sector 62, Noida, U.P. admeasuring 2618 sq. ft.
ii. Office no. 2 & 3, 3rd floor, Tower no. II, C-25, Stellar IT Park,
Sector 62, Noida, U.P. admeasuring 4426 sq. ft.
iii. Office no. 8, 3rd floor, Tower no. II, C-25, Stellar IT Park,
Sector 62, Noida, U.P. admeasuring 3704 sq. ft.
iv. Office no. 414, Metroplex East, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
admeasuring 102.657 sq. mts.

v. Office no. 301, Metroplex East, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
admeasuring 102.285 sq. mts.

vi. Two plots admeasuring 499 sq. yards and 250 sq. yards
respectively in Village Phullanwal, Ludhiana, Punjab.
vii. Bank Accounts with the following details:

a) Savings Account no. 2572000101913380 maintained
with Punjab National Bank, Madhuvan branch. New
Delhi.

b) FDR No. 257200TR00002910 maintained with Punjab

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 4 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.

c) FDR No. 257200PU00012024 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

d) FDR No. 257200TR00003991 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

e) FDR No. 257200TR00004796 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

f) FDR No. 257200TR00005120 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

g) FDR No. 257200PU00017603 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

h) FDR No. 257200PU00017597 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

i) FDR No. 257200PU00018204 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

j) FDR No. 25720000000223 maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Madhuvan branch

19. Material on record indicates that Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon passed away
intestate on 08.03.2018, while Late Shri B.S. Sekhon passed away on
10.04.2018, leaving behind all abovementioned Suit Properties and HUF
Properties. It is stated that neither Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon nor Late Shri B.S.
Sekhon executed any Will or testament and therefore, all the parties to the
instant Suit are equally entitled to the shares in the Suit Properties as well as
the HUF Properties.

20. Material on record further indicates that the Plaintiff and Defendant
No.1 have 1/3rd share each in the Suit Properties and HUF Properties and

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 5 of 20
This is a digitally signed order.

21. The case set up in the Plaint is that it was agreed by all the parties to
the present Suit that all the Suit Properties would be divided in equal share
in the manner mentioned above and though, the formal partition would be
deferred till after the customary ritual of a prayer meeting 11-12 months post
the demise of Late Smt. B.S. Sekhon and Late Shri B.K. Sekhon.

22. It is further stated in the Plaint that before the prayer meeting could be
conducted, the Plaintiff received a WhatsApp message from the Defendant
No. 1, whereby the Defendant No. 1 claimed that a Will allegedly executed
by Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon was discovered by a close friend, one Smt.
Maldeep Sidhu, under which Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon had bequeathed his
immoveable properties and his entire shareholding in B.S. Sekhon (HUF) to
the Defendant No.1. As per the Plaint, after this incident, it became
abundantly clear to the Plaintiff that the Defendant No. 1 had turned mala
fide and that he intends to deprive the Plaintiff, Defendants No.2 and 3 from
their lawful share in the Suit Properties.

23. It is further averred by the Plaintiff that the alleged Will dated
12.07.2017 propounded by the Defendant No.1 is patently forged and
fabricated and that no such Will was ever executed by Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon,
more so because her father would never have deprived her share in the Suit
Properties, since the Plaintiff was the one who took care of her parents in
their old age.

24. Contending that the alleged Will dated 12.07.2017 is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances, the Plaintiff states that the wife of the Defendant
No.1 i.e., Smt. Harinder Kaur Sekhon shared an overtly acrimonious

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 6 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
relationship with Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon and Late Shri B.K. Sekhon and in
their old age, Smt. Harinder Kaur Sekhon had caused them immense
physical and mental pain and torture, which was very evident from the
various letters and notes penned by Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon during the period
2015 till 2017, which have been filed along with the Plaint.

25. It is further stated that in 2017, Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon was not in sound
and disposing mind as he was suffering from Parkinson‟s disease for which
he was being treated by Dr. Mukesh Kumar, Neurosurgeon, Max Hospital,
Saket, New Delhi. It is stated that the treatment involved usage of a drug
known as „Sendopa‟ which is used to induce hallucination. In addition, Late
Sh. B.S. Sekhon was also suffering from an onset of Alzheimer‟s disease
and dementia and therefore, could not have been of a sound mind.

26. It is further stated that the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant no.1
in furtherance of his mala fide intentions withdrew a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-
approximately from the account of Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon for his personal use
and benefit. It is also stated that the said sum of amount has not been utilized
for the benefit of HUF Properties and it is apprehended that Defendant No.1
will further proceed to withdraw additional sum of amount from the account
of Late Sh. B.S. Sekhon.

27. Summons were issued in the Suit on 07.03.2019.

28. By way of the present Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the following amendments are being sought:

“A. Substitute Serial No. 1 under “Immovable and
Movable Properties Owned by Late Shri B.S. Sekhon”

and the same may be read as:

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 7 of 20

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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
B. Add a ‘row’ under “Immovable and Movable
Properties owned by B.S. Sekhon (HUF)” at Serial 1 as
mentioned under Para 1 of the Plaint and the same be
read as:

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 8 of 20

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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 9 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
C. Substitute paragraph 13 with the following amended
paragraph 13 and the same may be read as:

Para 13

“That it is pertinent to mention herein that even after the
demise of Late Shri B.S. Sekhon and Late Smt. B.K. Sekhon,
all their legal heirs and in particular the Plaintiff remained
in joint constructive possession of all the aforesaid Suit
properties and till date continue in joint ownership and
possession of the same. It is pertinent to note that
admittedly, 1st and 2nd Floor Madhuban Colony, Delhi –
110092 admeasuring 387 sq. yards has been built from the
funds of the HUF and therefore owned by the HUF, which
is evident from e-mail dated 10.04.2015 written by
Defendant No. 1 and especially the letter attached therewith
dated 08.04.2015. However, the properties described at
Serial No. 2 & 3 of the HUF Properties have remained
under the actual possession of the tenants inducted by Late
Shri B.S. Sekhon.”

D. Substitute paragraph 16 with the following amended
paragraph 16 and the same may be read as:

Para 16

“That the alleged Will dated 12.07.2017 is also forged and
fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances
inasmuch as the wife of the Defendant no. 1, Smt. Harinder
Kaur Sekhon had an overtly acrimonious relationship with

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 10 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
her mother in law and father in law. As a matter of fact, in
their old age, Smt. Harinder Kaur Sekhon had caused them
immense physical and mental pain and torture which is
evident from the complaint lodged with the P.S. Preet Vihar
recorded vide D.D. No. 15A dated 10.04.2015 for
harassment caused by the wife of Defendant No. 1 to Late
Smt. B.K. Sekhon the various letters and notes penned by
Late Shri B.S. Sekhon during the period 2015 till 2017.
Such notes and correspondence which Late Shri B.S.
Sekhon had handed over and entrusted to the Plaintiff are
duly filed along with the present Suit.”

E. Substitute paragraph 18 with the following amended
paragraph 18 and the same may be read as:

Para 18
‘That even otherwise in 2017, Late Shri B.S. Sekhon was not
in sound and disposing mind. During that period, he was
suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was being treated
for the same by Dr. Mukesh Kumar, Neurosurgeon, Max
Hospital, Saket, New Delhi. He was medicated with
‘Sendopa’, a drug known to induce hallucinations. He was
also suffering from an onset of Alzheimer’s disease and
dementia and could under no circumstances be considered
to be in sound and disposing mind. He was aged about 89
years of age at that point of time. The above-said averments
are further supported and substantiated by the medical
records of Late Shri B.S. Sekhon that are being filed along
with the present amended plaint.”

F. Substitute paragraph 20 with the following amended
paragraph 20 and the same may be read as:

Para 20
“That the Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant No. 1 in
furtherance of his mala fide intentions has proceeded to
withdraw a sum of approximately Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees
Forty-Five Lakhs) from the B.S. Sekhon (HUF) Account for

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 11 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
his personal use and benefit. It is submitted that the said
sum has not been withdrawn / utilized for the benefit of the
HUF and it is apprehended that Defendant No. 1 will
further proceed to withdraw additional sums and/or
appropriate the B.S. Sekhon (HUF) properties for his
personal use and benefit, thereby acting prejudicial to the
interests of the B.S. Sekhon (HUF) and its coparceners.”

29. Before delving into the merits of the Application, this Court shall
recall the law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC, which has been crystallized by the Apex Court through several
case laws. It is settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in
allowing amendment of pleadings, unless the same is barred by limitation.
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 Eastern
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]

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 12 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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:

“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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 13 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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
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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 14 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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
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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 15 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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.

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.”

30. 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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 16 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
under:

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

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,

(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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 17 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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
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

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 18 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
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
Del 1897] .)”

31. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the
view that amendments sought to be introduced by the Plaintiff merely
provide a fuller picture into the dispute between the parties to the instant
Suit, without introducing a new or time-barred cause of action.

32. It is also significant that by way of the proposed amendments, the
Plaintiff is not seeking to withdraw or resile from any admission made in the
original plaint so as to confer an unfair advantage upon himself or to divest
the Defendants of any accrued right.

33. The suit is admittedly at a pre-trial stage. Issues have not yet been
framed and no evidence has commenced. Consequently, the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not applicable to the present case. At this stage, a
liberal approach is warranted so that the Court is enabled to adjudicate the
real controversy between the parties on a complete factual foundation rather
than on truncated or imperfect pleadings.

34. It is also pertinent to note that no irreparable prejudice will be caused

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 19 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36
to the Defendants by permitting the amendment. The Defendants will have
full liberty to file an additional written statement and to lead evidence in
rebuttal.

35. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the proposed
amendments are bona fide and are required for proper adjudication of the
present Suit.

36. Let the amended Plaint filed along with the instant Application be
taken on record.

37. The Defendants are at liberty to file Written Statement(s) to the
amended portion of the Plaint within the time prescribed under the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

38. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has also sought liberty to file an
appropriate application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, to bring on
record the three documents on which reliance has been placed.

39. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

40. Let the said application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC be filed
within a period of two weeks from the date of upload of this Order.

41. List on 17.07.2026 before the learned Joint Registrar for
admission/denial of documents.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
APRIL 28, 2026
Prateek/AP

CS(OS) 138/2019 Page 20 of 20
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 08/05/2026 at 21:19:36

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Suman Randhawa vs Sh. Maldeep Sekhon & Ors on 28 April, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders