Smt. Madhu Sinha Ajit Mohan Chaudhary And Ors v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prem Shanker Pandey

taken up today itself and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani has concluded his submissions and has also cited the decisions.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Court No.4, Unnao in R.S.No.581 of 2009 whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the revisionist/plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the said application appears to have been filed with delay.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the application was moved bonafide for the purposes of elaborating the plea which was already taken in the suit and therefore the issue of delay was not material.

4. It is also urged that mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for amendment and it is the 'real controversy test' which is important for deciding the application for amendment.

5. It is further urged that the amendment application was merely clarifictory in nature to elaborate the plea which had been taken in the plaint and that did not amount to any super imposition of a fresh cause of action nor any right of the parties was adversely impacted and in the aforesaid circumstances the amendment should have been allowed and the 2 CLRE No. 30 of 2016 trial court committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application.

6. In support of the submissions, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1451 wherein the Apex Court noticed that after framing of issues technically the trial commenced and though the date was fixed for evidence but before the actual evidence could be led, the application for amendment was moved and in such circumstances the Apex Court allowed the application for amendment and it is urged that on the same premises

7. In the instant case also though the issues were framed but the actual evidence did not commence, hence the bar of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC should not come in the way of the revisionist and the application for amendment should be allowed.

8. It is further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chitranshi Vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi, 2025:AHC:169263 followed the dictum of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra (supra) and thereafter allowed the application for amendment and the revisionist in this case too deserves the same fait accompli.

9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that the plaintiff Smt. Madhu Sinha (revisionist herein) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as R.A.No.581 of 2009.

10. The record further indicates that after the exchange of pleadings the issues were framed in the year 2012. Application for amendment was filed on 26.11.2015, the copy of the said application is on record as annexure no.6. From the bare perusal of the said application, it would indicate that certain event which had occurred was sought to be incorporated by adding certain facts in paragraph-6 of the plaint. Similarly, in paragraph-21, certain words were sought to be incorporated and consequently, in the relief column, the relief was sought to be clarified.

11. In the aforesaid light, if the plaint is seen which is on record as annexure no.1, it would indicate that the rights being claimed by the 3 CLRE No. 30 of 2016 plaintiff was in light of the succession claiming 1/4 share in the property belonging to her father. Injunction was also sought and in respect of a late deed and an agreement to sell which was impugned.

12. What is significant to note that the plaint which was originally filed in the year 2009 was exhaustively amended by moving an application for amendment which came to be allowed on 30.11.2011 and it is in this backdrop that it would be noticed that the issues came to be framed in the year 2012. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, it would reveal that the plaint had already been amended in the year 2011 that what due diligence was exercised and yet the facts which are sought to be incorporated could not be brought on record. It is not disputed that the issues were framed in the year 2012 and again there is nothing on record to indicate that once the issues had been framed and the matter was being listed for evidence of the plaintiff, why the evidence was not led for three years which finally led to moving of the application for amendment. It is perhaps for the aforesaid reason that the trial court has noticed that the application has been moved only to delay the trial.

13. A specific query was put to the counsel for the revisionist as to what prejudice is to be caused if the said application for amendment is not allowed. The only answer that was forthcoming was that certain clarifications were required to be introduced by way of amendment.

14. Be that as it may, mere clarification of existing facts cannot partake the real controversy test. It is in these circumstances that the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC gains significance as it is for the very same reason that the proviso was introduced by an amendment in the CPC, to avoid any protraction of trial.

15. The Apex Court in J Samuel and others V. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012) 2 SCC 300 has considered the effect of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and held that as a matter of right an application for amendment cannot be entertained after commencement of trial and in case if it is moved then it is for the party to indicate with sufficient particularity, the due diligence as to why the said fact could not be brought on record earlier. 4 CLRE No. 30 of 2016

16. From the perusal of the amendment application, nothing has been stated to indicate the due indigence of the revisionist. In this context the observations of the Apex Court in J. Samuel (supra) is important and binding in the facts of the instant case.

17. In the factual scenario of the case the dictum of Mohinder Kumar Mehra (supra) does not help the revisionist and for the very same reason, the decision of this Court in Chitranshi (supra) also does not help the revisionist. Moreover, both the aforesaid decisions do not consider the dictum of the Apex Court in J. Samuel (supra). Moreover in Chitranshi (supra) the matter was relating to subsequent events which occurred after framing of issues, which is not the case here. Here the facts sought to be amended were in knowledge of the revisionist. Thus, the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable,

18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not finds that there is any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. December 4, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

taken up today itself and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani has concluded his submissions and has also cited the decisions.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Court No.4, Unnao in R.S.No.581 of 2009 whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the revisionist/plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the said application appears to have been filed with delay.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the application was moved bonafide for the purposes of elaborating the plea which was already taken in the suit and therefore the issue of delay was not material.

4. It is also urged that mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for amendment and it is the 'real controversy test' which is important for deciding the application for amendment.

5. It is further urged that the amendment application was merely clarifictory in nature to elaborate the plea which had been taken in the plaint and that did not amount to any super imposition of a fresh cause of action nor any right of the parties was adversely impacted and in the aforesaid circumstances the amendment should have been allowed and the 2 CLRE No. 30 of 2016 trial court committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application.

6. In support of the submissions, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1451 wherein the Apex Court noticed that after framing of issues technically the trial commenced and though the date was fixed for evidence but before the actual evidence could be led, the application for amendment was moved and in such circumstances the Apex Court allowed the application for amendment and it is urged that on the same premises

7. In the instant case also though the issues were framed but the actual evidence did not commence, hence the bar of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC should not come in the way of the revisionist and the application for amendment should be allowed.

8. It is further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chitranshi Vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi, 2025:AHC:169263 followed the dictum of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra (supra) and thereafter allowed the application for amendment and the revisionist in this case too deserves the same fait accompli.

9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that the plaintiff Smt. Madhu Sinha (revisionist herein) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as R.A.No.581 of 2009.

10. The record further indicates that after the exchange of pleadings the issues were framed in the year 2012. Application for amendment was filed on 26.11.2015, the copy of the said application is on record as annexure no.6. From the bare perusal of the said application, it would indicate that certain event which had occurred was sought to be incorporated by adding certain facts in paragraph-6 of the plaint. Similarly, in paragraph-21, certain words were sought to be incorporated and consequently, in the relief column, the relief was sought to be clarified.

11. In the aforesaid light, if the plaint is seen which is on record as annexure no.1, it would indicate that the rights being claimed by the 3 CLRE No. 30 of 2016 plaintiff was in light of the succession claiming 1/4 share in the property belonging to her father. Injunction was also sought and in respect of a late deed and an agreement to sell which was impugned.

12. What is significant to note that the plaint which was originally filed in the year 2009 was exhaustively amended by moving an application for amendment which came to be allowed on 30.11.2011 and it is in this backdrop that it would be noticed that the issues came to be framed in the year 2012. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, it would reveal that the plaint had already been amended in the year 2011 that what due diligence was exercised and yet the facts which are sought to be incorporated could not be brought on record. It is not disputed that the issues were framed in the year 2012 and again there is nothing on record to indicate that once the issues had been framed and the matter was being listed for evidence of the plaintiff, why the evidence was not led for three years which finally led to moving of the application for amendment. It is perhaps for the aforesaid reason that the trial court has noticed that the application has been moved only to delay the trial.

13. A specific query was put to the counsel for the revisionist as to what prejudice is to be caused if the said application for amendment is not allowed. The only answer that was forthcoming was that certain clarifications were required to be introduced by way of amendment.

14. Be that as it may, mere clarification of existing facts cannot partake the real controversy test. It is in these circumstances that the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC gains significance as it is for the very same reason that the proviso was introduced by an amendment in the CPC, to avoid any protraction of trial.

15. The Apex Court in J Samuel and others V. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012) 2 SCC 300 has considered the effect of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and held that as a matter of right an application for amendment cannot be entertained after commencement of trial and in case if it is moved then it is for the party to indicate with sufficient particularity, the due diligence as to why the said fact could not be brought on record earlier. 4 CLRE No. 30 of 2016

16. From the perusal of the amendment application, nothing has been stated to indicate the due indigence of the revisionist. In this context the observations of the Apex Court in J. Samuel (supra) is important and binding in the facts of the instant case.

17. In the factual scenario of the case the dictum of Mohinder Kumar Mehra (supra) does not help the revisionist and for the very same reason, the decision of this Court in Chitranshi (supra) also does not help the revisionist. Moreover, both the aforesaid decisions do not consider the dictum of the Apex Court in J. Samuel (supra). Moreover in Chitranshi (supra) the matter was relating to subsequent events which occurred after framing of issues, which is not the case here. Here the facts sought to be amended were in knowledge of the revisionist. Thus, the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable,

18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not finds that there is any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. December 4, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench