Writ Petition No. 4459 of 2011 · Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri R. K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ravi Ranjan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondents No. 2 to 8 though represented. Heard. Order dated 15-12-2010 passed by Eighth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 72A/2009 is being challenged vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order the trial Court rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By said application the petitioner, who is one of the defendants in a suit for mandatory injunction, proposed to add in paragraph 13 of their written statement the following plea : “ that the signatures of Defendant No. 3, 6, 8 and 9 in their written statement filed in this case are false, fabricated and forged as apparent from their Vakalatnama filed in this case.” Trial Court rejected the application holding that there is no foundation for allegation of forged signature.

Basic principles, as observed by their lordships in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswamy and Sons and others : (2009) 10 SCC 84, for allowing or rejecting the application for amendment are : W.P. No. 4459.11 “63. On critically analysing 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 constitutionally 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.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 64. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and he said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. 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 W.P. No. 4459.11 should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments.” Petitioners however fowl to demonstrate that the rejection of application for amendment has led to miscarriage of justice. There being no jurisdictional error, no interference is caused. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE