Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th JULY, 2026
IN
RAVI KANTA UPPAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Kartikay Puneesh, Ms. Rupam Jha and Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Advocates
Through: Mr. Harsha Gollamudi, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. This Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for amendment of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, challenging the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 on the ground that the Plaintiff's signatures on the said Relinquishment Deed were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The Suit also contains a consequential prayer for protection of the Plaintiff’s one-third ownership rights in the Suit Property bearing No. A-72, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi [“Suit Property”].
3. The Plaintiff is the sister-in-law of Defendant No.1, the Defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of Defendant No.1 and Late Harish Chander Kakaan 18.05.31 and Defendant No.4 is their daughter.
4. It is stated that the Suit Property belonged to the Plaintiff's mother, Late Mrs. Lajwanti, who passed away on 03.08.2000, leaving behind three legal heirs, namely, Late Mrs. Kala Sethi, Late Mr. Harish Chander Kakaan, and the Plaintiff, each allegedly becoming entitled to undivided one-third share in the Suit Property.
5. The Plaintiff claims that while she was in India, Defendants No.2 and 3 represented that the Defendant No.1 intended to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of her children and requested the Plaintiff and her husband to be present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate merely as witnesses. It is stated that relying upon such representation, the Plaintiff furnished her identity documents and accompanied the Defendants on 06.12.2022, when, according to her, she was made to sign documents without being permitted to read their contents. Subsequently, upon obtaining a certified copy of the registered Relinquishment Deed on 01.02.2023, the Plaintiff discovered that she had been shown as a joint releasor and had purportedly relinquished her one-third share in the Suit Property in favour of Defendants No.2 to 4. Thus alleging that the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was procured by fraud and misrepresentation, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking declaration and consequential mandatory and permanent injunctions.
6. In the present Application, the Plaintiff contends that after filing of the Suit, certain new facts came to her knowledge which necessitate amendment of the pleadings and consequential modification of the reliefs claimed. It is further pleaded that the proposed amendments are within limitation, do not alter the nature of the Suit, and are necessary for the effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties without causing 18.05.31 prejudice to the Defendants.
7. By way of the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff seeks to implead the legal heirs of her deceased sister, Late Mrs. Kala Sethi, as Defendants No. 5 to 8 on the ground that they inherited her one-third share in the estate of Late Smt. Lajwanti and are necessary parties to the proceedings. The Plaintiff also seeks impleadment of the concerned Sub-Registrar as Defendant No. 9, before whom the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was registered. The Plaintiff further seeks to amend the Suit by introducing additional reliefs of cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022, declaration that the alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 purportedly executed by Late Smt. Lajwanti is null and void; seeking partition, possession, and consequential mandatory and permanent injunctions. The necessity for such amendments is stated to have arisen after the Plaintiff came to know of the alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 only upon receipt of the Written Statement filed by Defendants No. 1 to 4 on 17.05.2023. By way of the present amendment, the Plaintiff proposes to incorporate detailed pleadings alleging that the said Will dated 24.03.1994 is forged and fabricated, inter alia, on the grounds that it was never disclosed during the lifetime of Late Smt. Lajwanti, that she was illiterate in English whereas the Will dated 24.03.1994 is drafted in English, that the signatures appearing thereon are suspicious, that the Will dated 24.03.1994 unjustifiably excludes the daughters without assigning any reason, that it surfaced only after the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was challenged, and that the same itself records that Late Smt. Lajwanti died intestate.
8. The Plaintiff also seeks consequential amendments to the factual pleadings, valuation, cause of action, prayer clause and list of documents to 18.05.31 bring the subsequent facts and additional reliefs on record.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Defendant contends that the present Application is vague, frivolous, mala fide and an abuse of the process of law, filed only to fill the lacunae in the Plaint after the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's case were exposed in the Written Statement, and to delay the proceedings. According to the Defendants, the proposed amendments are not bona fide and are beyond the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
10. The principal objection of the Defendants is that the Plaintiff has sought to introduce facts which were already within her knowledge at the time of filing the Suit and has falsely portrayed them as newly discovered facts. It is argued that the Plaintiff was aware of the alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 even before institution of the Suit, as is evident from the Order dated 29.03.2023, wherein the Court recorded that the Plaintiff appears to be aware of the execution of the Will but had not challenged it in the Plaint. The Defendants submit that the challenge to the Will dated 24.03.1994 is merely an afterthought, intended to overcome the objections raised in the Written Statement and to cure defects in the original pleadings. Defendants further contend that the Plaintiff has failed to disclose when and how the alleged new facts came to her knowledge and have offered no explanation as to why they were omitted from the original plaint despite due diligence, and has therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, to contend that the amendment which causes prejudice to the other side and cannot be compensated in money, should not be permitted. 18.05.31
11. The Defendants further object that the proposed amendment completely changes the nature and scope of the Suit, which is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Defendants point out that the original Plaint was confined to cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 and consequential injunctions, whereas the amendment seeks to convert it into a suit for declaration, cancellation, partition, possession and other consequential reliefs. According to the Defendants, such amendments introduce a completely new cause of action, alter the character of the litigation, and are therefore impermissible in law.
12. Another objection raised is regarding the Plaintiff's attempt to produce additional documents, despite the same documents being in the Plaintiff’s possession ab initio. The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff has neither sought prior leave of the Court nor explained why the documents, which were admittedly in her possession at the time of filing the suit, were not filed earlier. It is argued that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be invoked to introduce documents without assigning any justification for the delay.
13. The Defendants also oppose the proposed impleadment of additional parties, namely the legal heirs of Late Mrs. Kala Sethi and the concerned Sub-Registrar. It is contended that the controversy in the Suit is confined to whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 was executed by the Plaintiff under fraud or misrepresentation, and the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of that issue. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff has failed to disclose any cause of action against the proposed Defendants or explain how their presence is necessary for deciding the existing dispute.
14. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on 18.05.31 record.
15. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, so long as such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and provided the application is not hit by the proviso restricting post-trial amendments. As issues in the present Suit have not yet been framed, the bar under the proviso does not come into operation.
16. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC 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. 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:
18.05.31 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 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 18.05.31 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 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 18.05.31 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 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.”
17. In addition, 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:-
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. 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 do 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 situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 18.05.31 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is 18.05.31 required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897].)”
18. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff merits acceptance.
19. In the present case, the original Plaint challenges the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 on the ground that the same was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Defendants disclosed and placed reliance upon the alleged Will dated 24.03.1994 in their Written Statement. The Plaintiff now seeks to challenge the said Will and to incorporate consequential pleadings and reliefs flowing therefrom. The challenge to the Will and the consequential reliefs arise out of the same set of transactions concerning the title and succession to the Suit Property and are intrinsically connected with the disputes already pending before this Court. 18.05.31
20. A reference is made to Paragraph No. 17 of the Order dated 29.03.2023, which reads as under:
21. The above paragraph indicates that the contention regarding the Will dated 24.03.1994 was raised by the Defendants and there is a stray/casual remark by this Court that the Plaintiff knew about the Will. The said remark cannot be said to be conclusive that the Plaintiff was aware of the Will and she intentionally chose not to state anything about it in the Plaint. The contention of the Defendants that the Plaintiff had prior knowledge of the alleged Will and therefore cannot be permitted to amend the Plaint raises disputed questions which cannot be accepted. The argument can only be based on Order II Rule 2 CPC. However, it is well settled that the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment in view of the settled law in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
18.05.31
22. The proposed amendments neither introduce a wholly unrelated cause of action nor change the fundamental character of the litigation. The dispute remains with respect to the rights of the parties in the Suit Property and the validity of the documents on the basis of which title is claimed. The additional reliefs of declaration, partition and possession are consequential to the challenge raised by the Plaintiff regarding the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.12.2022 and the alleged Will. Refusing the amendment would compel the Plaintiff to institute independent proceedings, resulting in multiplicity of litigation and the possibility of conflicting findings.
23. Likewise, the impleadment of the legal heirs of Late Mrs. Kala Sethi and the concerned Sub-Registrar also cannot be said to be wholly unnecessary at this stage, particularly when the Plaintiff asserts that the legal heirs of Late Mrs. Kala Sethi claim an interest in the estate and the relief sought includes cancellation of a registered instrument. Their presence would enable the Court to comprehensively adjudicate the disputes arising out of the same property.
24. The objections regarding maintainability, limitation, prior knowledge of the Plaintiff, genuineness of the alleged Will, and the merits of the proposed claims are left open to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage. Merely because the amendment may require the Defendants to meet additional pleadings cannot be construed as prejudice incapable of being compensated by granting them an opportunity to file an amended written statement especially when the proceedings are at a preliminary stage.
25. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in 18.05.31 controversy between the parties. No irreparable prejudice would be caused to the Defendants if the amendments are permitted, whereas refusal of the amendment may result in incomplete adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
26. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed.
27. The amended Plaint is taken on record.
28. The Defendants are granted 30 days to file their amended Written Statement, if required.
29. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all rights and contentions of the parties, including the objections regarding limitation, maintainability, genuineness of the alleged Will, and entitlement to the reliefs claimed, are kept open for consideration at the appropriate stage. CS(OS) 211/2023 & I.A. 6142/2023, I.A. 6143/2023
30. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 17.08.2026 for further proceedings. I.A. 25150/2023
31. This Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the Defendants seeking rejection of the Plaint.
32. List on 20.08.2026 in the Supplementary List.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 09, 2026