Rajinder Vaid and Another Vs Sanjeev Vaid and Others

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Rajouri (hereinafter ‘the trial court’), whereby an application of the respondents/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned trial court whereby objection of the petitioners/defendants with regard to taking on record of the amended plaint has been over-ruled by the said court.

¶13

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused record of the case.

¶14

3. It appears that initially the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a declaration that the document named and styled as Memorandum of family partition dated 28.05.2011 is illegal and inoperative being void ab intio. A permanent injunction restraining

¶15

2 CM(M) No. 252/2025

¶16

the defendants from permitting the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit properties to the extent of their share was also sought.

¶17

4. It seems that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit after death of the defendant No. 1 in the month of February, 2015, other defendants have succeeded in taking over possession of whole of the suit property. On these grounds, the plaintiffs sought to incorporate pleadings to this effect and to include the prayer relating decree for possession.

¶18

5. It seems that the said application was allowed by the trial court, in terms of order dated 11.11.2016. The said order came to be challenged by the defendants by way of petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The petition was allowed by this Court on 25.09.2018 and order passed by the trial court was set aside on the ground that the application for amendment was not accompanied by an affidavit.

¶19

6. It seems that after the passing of order by this Court on 25.04.2018 in the petition filed by the defendants under article 227 of the Constitution of India, a fresh application came to be filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court seeking amendment of the plaint on same grounds but this time they annexed an affidavit in support of the application. The application was contested by the defendants by filing their objections thereto.

¶20

3 CM(M) No. 252/2025

¶21

7. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties and after analyzing the facts of the case passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 whereby the application of the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint within a period of 10 days. It seems that the plaintiffs did not file the amended plaint within the stipulated time of ten days but they filed the same after a lapse of fifteen days. An objection in this regard was raised by the defendants in their written statement to the amended plaint. The said objection has been over-ruled by the trial court in terms of order dated 20.05.2025. Both these orders i.e. order dated 21.10.2022 and 20.05.2025 passed by the learned trial court are under challenge by way of the present petition.

¶22

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that once previous application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was dismissed by this Court while exercising powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India, it was not open to the plaintiffs to file a fresh application before the trial court for the same relief on identical facts. He has further contended that by allowing the amendment of the plaint, the learned trial court has permitted the plaintiffs to change the nature of the suit which is impermissible in law.

¶23

9. It has further been contended that the learned trial court by permitting the plaintiffs to file the amended plaint beyond the

¶24

4 CM(M) No. 252/2025

¶25

stipulated time has acted contrary to the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶26

10. So far as, the first application for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court is concerned, though the same was allowed by the learned trial court, this Court vide order dated 25.04.2018 set aside the said order only on the ground that the application filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court was not accompanied by an affidavit. This Court did not go into the merits of the order passed by the trial court, therefore, there was no bar to the trial court to consider the application of the plaintiffs afresh after filing of affidavit in support of the application. This is what has been done by learned trial court. The order of this court passed on 25.04.2018 in the earlier round of litigation did not bar the plaintiffs from filing a fresh application after supporting the same with an affidavit as the order passed by this Court has not dealt with the merits of the case, as such, does not attract the principle of resjudicata against the plaintiffs.

¶27

11. So far as, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment sought to be made by the plaintiffs would change the nature of the suit is concerned, the same is also without any substance. It is always open to the Court to take notice of the subsequent events so that the relief that has become inappropriate can be permitted to be amended. It is, in fact, necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to avoid multiplicity of

¶28

5 CM(M) No. 252/2025

¶29

litigation. The court is empowered to do whatever is necessary to do complete justice between the parties. In this regard, I am supported by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of “Shikharchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha & Ors.” . reported in 1974 (1) SCC 675

¶30

12. Once, the plaintiffs have pleaded that during pendency of the suit they have been dispossessed from the suit property, it was open to the learned trial court to allow the amendment so as to take notice of the subsequent developments and to permit the plaintiffs to apply for relief of possession. There is no legal or statutory bar in allowing such amendment. The learned trial court while allowing the amendment has avoided multiplicity of litigation between the parties which is the object of provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶31

13. That takes us to the validity of order dated 25.05.2025 whereby the plaintiffs have been allowed to file the amended plaint beyond the stipulated period of ten days. In this regard, it is to be noted that Order 7 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that if no time is fixed, the amended plaint can be filed within fourteen days and this period can be extended by the court.

¶32

14. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed the amended plaint beyond the stipulated period of 10 days and in fact they have filed it on 15^th day. The learned trial court was not powerless to extend the time granted by it for filing the amended plaint. The

¶33

6 CM(M) No. 252/2025

¶34

provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 clearly grant power to a court to extend the period stipulated for filing amended plaint. The fact that the learned trial court has accepted the amended plaint after the lapse of stipulated period of 10 days leads to the inference that the court has extended time in filing the amended written plaint. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 20.05.2025. The said order being within the scope of power of the trial court cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

¶35

15. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶36

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

¶37

JAMMU 08.09.2025 Shivalee

¶38

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No

¶39

Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.10 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu

Rajinder Vaid and Another v. Sanjeev Vaid and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Vaid and Another v. Sanjeev Vaid and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhilasha Sharma and Another Vs Pappu Ram and Others

Gandharb Singh Vs Rangail Singh and Others

Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs Mohammad Yousuf Khan

Umar Farooq Khan Vs Razia Sultan and Anr.

Taja Begum Vs Ali Mohammad Mir and Anr.

Abdul Rehman Reshi Vs Lali Begum and Ors.

Yasir Ali Malik Vs Shifan Khanday

Farzi Alias Fazi Vs Ghulam Hassan Bhat and Others

Abhilasha Sharma and Another Vs Pappu Ram and Others

Karan Singh Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Revenue Department, Jammu and Another

Balbir SINGh Jamwal and Others Vs Satpal Sharma

Rajan Jain Vs Regional Passport Office Th Passport Officer Jammu and Others

Som Nath Vs Subash Chander and Others

Romesh Chander Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others