# Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 775
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 14134 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anendra-singh-v-ram-kishan-anr-54203
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2 All. Anendra Singh Vs. Ram Kishan & Anr.
775

12. Since the suit is of the year 1997, it is expected that the court below i.e. Additional Civil
Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 3, Gorakhpur to consider and decide the aforesaid case, in
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the parties concerned and
after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence
in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties
provided that there is no other legal impediment.

13. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 775
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 14134 of 2024

Anendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kishan & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was highly delayed as the same was filed
almost after three years of the alleged possession being taken by them, which was not admitted to the
defendants as they were already in possession and the amendment application was hit by the proviso to Rule
17 of Order VI of C.P.C. as the issues have been framed in the suit and the suit has commenced.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VI Rule 17-
The amendment sought by the plaintiff was only to incorporate a relief, based on a cause of
action which arose after filing of the suit. Since the allegation of the plaintiff was that in June,
2019 the possession was taken and the consequential amendment application was filed in May,
2022 well within three years, the plaintiff could have filed a separate suit for the same relief
which he sought to add in the plaint by seeking an amendment. Once a separate suit is
permissible, there is no reason to deny a relief by amendment in the pending suit as the same
will avoid multiplicity of the proceedings- The merit of amendment cannot be prejudged at the
stage of considering the application for amendment. The question as to whether which of the
parties is in possession has to be considered and decided after the evidence is led by both the
parties.
Held- The courts below erred in rejecting the application for amendment- Impugned orders dated 23.02.2024
and 03.07.2024 are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. (E-15)

(Para 6, 9 & 13)
Case Law Cited
Chitranshi Vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi reported in 2025 (5) AWC 4867; Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani
Mehra and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 132; Sampath Kumar versus Ayakannu and others reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 559;
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords
Amendment application; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Cause of action; arose after filing of suit; consequential
amendment application.

Case Arising From
Petition filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the trial court i.e. Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, rejecting an application for amendment filed by the plaintiffpetitioner in the suit. Against the order dated 23.02.2024, a revision was filed by the petitioner and the same
has also been dismissed

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Kumar Verma, Suresh Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajai Singh Kushwaha

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Singh
Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the trial court
i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, rejecting an application for
amendment filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit. Against the order dated 23.02.2024, a
revision was filed by the petitioner and the same has also been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for declaration was instituted on 29.05.2015, claiming
ownership of the property in dispute on the basis of Will executed by the original owner of the
property in dispute in favour of the petitioner. During pendency of the suit, an amendment
application was filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the court below, in May, 2022
with the allegation that during the pendency of the suit in June, 2019, the defendants have taken
forcible possession of the property in dispute and therefore, the decree of possession may also be
passed in favor of the plaintiff-petitioner. The said application was opposed by the defendants and
was ultimately dismissed by the trial court. Revision filed against the said order has also been
dismissed.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only
claiming a consequential relief because a cause of action for the same arose after filing of the suit.
It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the case of the
petitioner, the possession was taken forcibly by the defendants in June, 2019 and the consequent
amendment application was filed by the petitioner in May, 2022 well within the limitation for filing
a suit for possession. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once a
separate suit could have been filed by the petitioner, there was no impediment in allowing the
amendment application as the same would result in avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings.
2 All. Anendra Singh Vs. Ram Kishan & Anr.
777

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the courts below
have committed no illegality in rejecting the amendment application. The amendment application
filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was highly delayed as the same was filed almost after three years of
the alleged possession being taken by them, which was not admitted to the defendants as they were
already in possession. It has been further submitted that the amendment application was hit by the
proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C. as the issues have been framed in the suit and the suit has
commenced.

6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the amendment
sought by the plaintiff was only to incorporate a relief, which was based on a cause of action which
arose after filing of the suit. Since the allegation of the plaintiff was that in June, 2019 the
possession was taken and the consequential amendment application was filed in May, 2022 well
within three years, the plaintiff could have filed a separate suit for the same relief which he sought
to add in the plaint by seeking an amendment. Once a separate suit is permissible, there is no
reason to deny a relief by amendment in the pending suit as the same will avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings.

7. In case of Sampath Kumar versus Ayakannu and others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559,
the Supreme Court was considering the question whether it is permissible to convert through
amendment a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction into a suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession. In paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"6. It is true that the plaintiff on the averments made in the application for amendment
proposes to introduce a cause of action which has arisen to the plaintiff during the pendency of the
suit. According to the defendant the averments made in the application for amendment are factually
incorrect and the defendant was not in possession of the property since before the institution of the
suit itself.

7. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed
amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the
opinion of the Trial Court it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the
reasons which has prevailed with the Trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer
for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiffs revision. We fail to understand, if it is
permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed
for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal
proceedings"

8. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such
amendments as are directed towards putting-form and seeking determination of the real question in
controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an
application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of
institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be
made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof.

9. So far as contention of learned counsel for the respondents that trial court has rejected the
application for amendment on the ground that the issues have been framed in the suit and in the
application for amendment, it has not been disclosed as to why the delay has been occurred in filing
the amendment application. It has also been held that defendants in their written statement has
specifically stated that defendants are in possession over the property in dispute, in such a situation,
amendment application cannot be allowed. The same view has been reaffirmed by the revisional
court. The view taken by the courts below is erroneous. The merit of amendment cannot be
prejudged at the stage of considering the application for amendment. The question as to whether
which of the parties is in possession has to be considered and decided after the evidence is led by
both the parties.

10. Further, this Court in the case of Chitranshi Vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi reported in 2025
(5) AWC 4867 relied upon the judgment of Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and
others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 132 and held that normally the trial commences with the leading
of evidence and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. prohibited entertainment of amendment
application after commencement of the trial with the object and purpose that once parties proceed
with the leading of evidence, no new pleading be permitted to be introduced.

11. In the present case, only issues have been framed and it is not the case of either of the
parties that any evidence was led at the time of filing of the amendment application.

12. The Supreme Court in case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu (supra) has held that
delay in filing an application for amendment by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the
application. Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment in case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu(supra) is
quoted as under:-

"9. Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to
alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just.
Such amendments as are directed towards putting forth and seeking determination of the real
questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay
in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the
date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has
proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be
made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In former case generally it
can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of
meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the
opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and
circumstances of each individual case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains
that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment."
2 All. Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
779

13. In my view, the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application for amendment.
Consequently, the orders dated 23.02.2024 and 03.07.2024 are hereby quashed. The petition is
allowed.

14. As the matter is pending since 2019, I am not remitting the same to be decided by the trial
court itself and in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am allowing
the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall carry out the amendment
within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the court
below.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 779
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 871 of 2026

Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh ....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the complaint filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, is
maintainable in law.
Whether the authorization order issued by the District Magistrate was legally valid despite absence of
recorded reasons.
Whether the discharge application could be allowed on the ground that the complaint was based on hearsay
evidence.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 17, 17(1), 17(3),
17(3)(b), 23, 28, 28(1), 28(1)(a), 30, 30(1) - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 - Rule 11: - Application u/s 482 CrPC - for
quashing impugned orders whereby the trial court rejected discharge application and further the dismissal of
criminal revision subsequently - Complaint filed under PCPNDT Act, 1994 - cognizance - summoning order -
bail granted - applicant pleaded that complaint not filed by Appropriate Authority and authorization defective
and complaint was based on hearsay evidence - State contended District Magistrate validly authorized ACMO
under Section 28(1)(a) and Rule 11 PCPNDT Rules - Court finds delegation permissible, authorization lawful,
and evidentiary challenge premature - held - Section 28 allows complaint by officer duly authorized -and Rule
11 permits inspection authorization without reasons - further, Section 482 jurisdiction does not extend to
mini-trial - consequently, complaint maintainable, discharge rightly rejected - petition fails - accordingly,
rejected. (Para - 18, 20, 21, 22)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 (SC)