Birinder Kaur v. Baltej Sra

14. A perusal of the said provision indicates that in cases in which the party pleading, relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful 05.02.21 default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary, in that case specific particulars have to be given in the pleading.

15. It is well settled that general allegations in the plaint, however strong, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud or undue influence. Parties relying on fraud or undue influence must give particulars and if details as to how fraud and undue influence has been committed is not given it can even result in rejection of the plaint.

16. Where undue influence is pleaded, a vague or general plea can never serve the purpose. Precise nature of fraud or undue influence and correct particulars has to be given in order to bring out a case of unfair advantage against the Defendant. Without such particulars, the party alleging fraud cannot lead evidence.

17. The Apex Court in Bishnudeo Narain & Anr. v. Seogeni Rai & Anr., 1951 SCC OnLine SC 34, has observed as under:-

18. Similarly, the Apex Court in Electrosteel Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors., 2022 (2) SCC 573, has observed as under:-

7.2. However, it is required to be noted that except the words used “fraud”/“fraudulent” there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the “fraud”. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words “fraud”/“fraudulent” without any specific particulars with respect to the “fraud”, the plaintiff-appellant herein intends to get out of the bar under Section 34 of the Sarfaesi Act and wants the suit to be maintainable. As per the settled proposition of law mere mentioning and using the word “fraud”/“fraudulent” is not sufficient to satisfy the test of “fraud”. As per the settled proposition of law such a pleading/using the word “fraud”/“fraudulent” without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of “fraud”.

8. In Bishundeo Narain [Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, 1951 SCC 447: 1951 SCR 548] in para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 454) “22. … Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong 05.02.21 the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code.”

8.1. Similar view has been expressed in Ladli Parshad Jaiswal [Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1964) 1 SCR 270: AIR 1963 SC 1279] and after considering the decision of the Privy Council in Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Harish Chandra [Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Harish Chandra, 1937 SCC OnLine PC 24: (1936-37) 64 IA 143], it is held that a litigant who prefers allegation of fraud or other improper conduct must place on record precise and specific details of these charges. Even as per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, particulars shall be stated in the pleading. Similarly in K.C. Sharma & Co. [Union of India v. K.C. Sharma & Co., (2020) 15 SCC 209] it is held that “fraud” has to be pleaded with necessary particulars. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364], it is observed and held by this Court that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.

8.2. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467], it is observed and held in para 5 as under: (SCC p. 470)

8.3. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the recent decision in P. Selathal [Canara Bank v. P. Selathal, (2020) 13 SCC 143].”

19. It is, therefore, trite law that a plaint which is based on fraud or undue influence can be rejected if material particulars are found wanting.

20. This Court is not entering into the question as to whether the Replication would be a part of the pleadings or not. The trial in the instant case has yet not begun.

21. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and how amendment is to be permitted is no longer res integra and the same has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing amendment of pleadings, however the same cannot be allowed in every case. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:

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:

05.02.21 applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as under:

”

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 05.02.21 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 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 05.02.21 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 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 05.02.21 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.”

22. Similarly, 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 under:-

23. In the opinion of this Court, there is no impediment in permitting the Plaintiff to amend the Plaint to introduce material particulars of fraud in order to enable her to lead evidence on those particulars.

24. Applying the principles of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC and the law relating to amendment of pleadings, this Court is inclined to allow the present Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

25. It is stated that the amended plaint has already been filed. Let the same be taken on record.

26. Let the amended Written Statement be filed. Replication thereto, if any, be filed within the time prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

27. The Application is disposed of.

28. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 23.03.2026, i.e., the date already fixed in the matter.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 17, 2026