Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Modanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 03.10.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No.939 of 1989, whereby the application for amendment of plaint (paper no. 31 Ga), has been allowed.

3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order by filing a Civil Revision No. 93 of 2023, which has been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the Additional District Judge/ FTC, Pratapgarh and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the revisional order also.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment application was filed after a delay of 31 years and it changes description of the property itself. He has submitted that such an amendment sought after an unreasonable delay, has been allowed.

5. The aforesaid suit was filed by Bhuwar (since deceased) against the petitioner Brij Lal for recovery of possession, on 12.09.1989.

6. The petitioner- defendant filed his written statement on 31.07.1992. The issues were framed on 21.10.1992. Admittedly, the evidence has not 2 A227 No. 7217 of 2025 been recorded in the suit till date. Upon the plaintiff's application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on

25.01.2006.

7. The original plaintiff - Bhuwar died on 23.07.2011 and in his place his son Bhai Lal was substituted, who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking to correct the description of the property. It was stated in the application that the original plaintiff was an illiterate person, who used to work as a labourer in agricultural farms. During the preparation of the case, it transpired from the commission report that the land in dispute is not a part of land bearing Gata No. 914, which is recorded as a chak mark, rather, the land in dispute falls in the new Gata No. 852, old no. 898 (6), the plaintiff accordingly sought to correct the Gata No. and area of the property in dispute.

8. The petitioner filed objections against the application stating that the amendment application has been filed after a delay of 31 years and it would alter the nature of the suit. It has also been denied that the original plaintiff was an illiterate person and that person has put his signature on the plaint etc. The trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 holding that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit.

9. The revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.10.2022, passed by the trial court, has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025. It is recorded in the revision order that a perusal of the trial court record shows that the suit was pending since long at the stage of submission of Commissioner's report. The plaintiff claims that during this period, this fact came to light that the land in dispute is not a part of land bearing Gata No. 914 rather it is a part of land Gata No. 852 Kha, old No. 896(6). the revisional court further stated that the amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay, if it is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter and if it does not cause any prejudice to the other side. The plaintiff is not seeking any change in the site plan but he is merely seeking to alter the Gata No. of the land. Both the parties are yet to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The mere correction in 3 A227 No. 7217 of 2025 Gata No. does not change the nature of the suit.

10. The revisional court has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 S.A.R. (Civ) page 1127, wherein it has been held that all amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided that it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, this is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., 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 situation).

11. The revisional court had also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Asare Vs. Gyan Babu and others (2006 All. C.J. Page 1951), wherein it has been held that all amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, between parties should be allowed. Proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6 cannot place any impediment in allowing the amendment application- if it was otherwise liable to be allowed.

12. This Court finds no error or illegality in the reasoning recorded by the revisional court while challenging the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the trial court. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised only when the Court finds order under challenge has been passed without jurisdiction or which suffers with patent illegality, which would cause injustice to the other side. As the suit is pending since long, leading of evidence has yet to commence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by allowing the amendment whereby merely Gata No. has been altered without any change in the site plan in the given plaint. 4 A227 No. 7217 of 2025

13. The petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

14. As the suit is pending for more than 3 years, it is directed that the trial court shall proceed with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. December 18, 2025 Muk (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Modanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 03.10.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No.939 of 1989, whereby the application for amendment of plaint (paper no. 31 Ga), has been allowed.

3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order by filing a Civil Revision No. 93 of 2023, which has been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the Additional District Judge/ FTC, Pratapgarh and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the revisional order also.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment application was filed after a delay of 31 years and it changes description of the property itself. He has submitted that such an amendment sought after an unreasonable delay, has been allowed.

5. The aforesaid suit was filed by Bhuwar (since deceased) against the petitioner Brij Lal for recovery of possession, on 12.09.1989.

6. The petitioner- defendant filed his written statement on 31.07.1992. The issues were framed on 21.10.1992. Admittedly, the evidence has not 2 A227 No. 7217 of 2025 been recorded in the suit till date. Upon the plaintiff's application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on

25.01.2006.

7. The original plaintiff - Bhuwar died on 23.07.2011 and in his place his son Bhai Lal was substituted, who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking to correct the description of the property. It was stated in the application that the original plaintiff was an illiterate person, who used to work as a labourer in agricultural farms. During the preparation of the case, it transpired from the commission report that the land in dispute is not a part of land bearing Gata No. 914, which is recorded as a chak mark, rather, the land in dispute falls in the new Gata No. 852, old no. 898 (6), the plaintiff accordingly sought to correct the Gata No. and area of the property in dispute.

8. The petitioner filed objections against the application stating that the amendment application has been filed after a delay of 31 years and it would alter the nature of the suit. It has also been denied that the original plaintiff was an illiterate person and that person has put his signature on the plaint etc. The trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 holding that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit.

9. The revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.10.2022, passed by the trial court, has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025. It is recorded in the revision order that a perusal of the trial court record shows that the suit was pending since long at the stage of submission of Commissioner's report. The plaintiff claims that during this period, this fact came to light that the land in dispute is not a part of land bearing Gata No. 914 rather it is a part of land Gata No. 852 Kha, old No. 896(6). the revisional court further stated that the amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay, if it is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter and if it does not cause any prejudice to the other side. The plaintiff is not seeking any change in the site plan but he is merely seeking to alter the Gata No. of the land. Both the parties are yet to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The mere correction in 3 A227 No. 7217 of 2025 Gata No. does not change the nature of the suit.

10. The revisional court has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 S.A.R. (Civ) page 1127, wherein it has been held that all amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided that it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, this is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., 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 situation).

11. The revisional court had also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Asare Vs. Gyan Babu and others (2006 All. C.J. Page 1951), wherein it has been held that all amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, between parties should be allowed. Proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6 cannot place any impediment in allowing the amendment application- if it was otherwise liable to be allowed.

12. This Court finds no error or illegality in the reasoning recorded by the revisional court while challenging the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the trial court. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised only when the Court finds order under challenge has been passed without jurisdiction or which suffers with patent illegality, which would cause injustice to the other side. As the suit is pending since long, leading of evidence has yet to commence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by allowing the amendment whereby merely Gata No. has been altered without any change in the site plan in the given plaint. 4 A227 No. 7217 of 2025

13. The petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

14. As the suit is pending for more than 3 years, it is directed that the trial court shall proceed with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. December 18, 2025 Muk (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)