Gurudeen Anand Shankar And 2 Others v. Dinesh Kumar Shukla

#1. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

#2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated

07.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, (J.D.), Court No.13, District- Barabanki in Regular Suit No.220 of 2000 whereby an application (Paper No.A-91) filed by the applicant for amendment of the plaint, has been allowed. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil Revision No.03 of 2025, which has been dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Court No.37, Barabanki and the validity of the revisional order has also been assailed by the petitioner.

#3. The plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3) had filed the application for amendment in plaint stating that during covid pandemic, the petitioner- defendant had forcibly raised a 10 feet high wall towards their house on the land in dispute and thus they have included the land along with house in their possession. The petitioner-defendant has cut down the trees existing on the land and by raising the wall, they have taken a latrine, drain and passage existing on the land in their possession.

#4. The petitioner-defendant filed objections against the amendment application stating that the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are factually incorrect and are the outcome of an afterthought. The wall referred to in the amendment application, is the wall of the petitioner-defendant's ancestral house. It was not possible to raise any new 2 A227 No. 7468 of 2025 construction during covid pandemic. No construction is existing on the property in dispute. The property in dispute is in possession of the petitioner- defendant.

#5. The trial Court found that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit and it does not cause any substantial loss to the petitioner. The inconvenience caused to the petitioner can be compensated by awarding cost.

#6. In revision, the learned Additional District Judge held that correctness of the averments sought to be pleaded by way of amendment has not to be examined while deciding an application for amendment. At this stage, the Court is merely required to see whether the proposed amendment falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC or not. The Court cannot give any finding as to whether the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are correct or not. The correctness of the pleas will be examined after the parties lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.

#7. Assailing validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has to examine the merits of the contentions sought to be incorporated by way of amendment and he has submitted that it has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment in the case of Dinesh Goya @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal, (2024) 42 LCD 2336 and Basavraj v. Indira and Ors., (2024) 42 LCD 582.

#8. In Dinesh Goyal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the law relating to amendment of pleadings in the following paragraphs:- "11.1 The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511 it was held as under: "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 3 A227 No. 7468 of 2025 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.]"

11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- for determining (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary 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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC. the real question (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) 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. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right(in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or, introduce an additional or a new A227 No. 7468 of 2025 4 approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint."

#9. In Basavraj (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to a previous decision in the case of M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and Ors., (2019) 4 SCC 332 :- "7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being 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 the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money."

#10. In none of the aforesaid judgments it has been held that correctness of the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment can be examined at the stage of deciding an application for amendment.

#11. Although the suit is pending since the year 2000, the fact which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, is regarding a subsequent development that actually took place after filing of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant has raised a wall on the property in dispute during pendency of the suit. The defendant-petition denies this fact.

#12. Without going into the correctness of the rival contentions, in case a 5 A227 No. 7468 of 2025 party pleads that a wall has been raised on the property in dispute during pendency of the suit for perpetual injunction, this subsequent development can certainly be pleaded by way of amendment.

#13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the application for amendment and the revisional Court has also not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the revision filed against the same.

#14. The petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. January 21, 2026 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)