Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16877 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1002942 of 1997 Petitioner :- Sadhu Respondent :- Special/Addl. District And Session Judge Sultanpur Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif Khan,Mohammad Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order passed on the amendment application filed at the appellate proceedings stage. The said order was passed on 17.11.1997. 3. The facts that arise from the material on record reveal that initially, the petitioner had filed a suit on 22.09.1983 claiming a decree of permanent injunction. In paragraph 6 of the said plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was in possession of the property since time immemorial and thus, his possession could not have been disturbed. He also pleaded that the premises in question was being used for residential purposes since time immemorial. Subsequently, the suit appears to have failed and was dismissed and the petitioner aggrieved against the said, preferred an Appeal No.186 of 1987. In the said appeal, an application for amendment was filed on 16.07.1997 seeking to amend the plaint. The amendment application is on record. Through the said amendment, the petitioner as the plaintiff wanted to give pedigree of the plaintiff's family, based upon which, he claimed to be in possession since time immemorial. After the objections to the said amendment application, the same has been rejected by means of the order dated 17.11.1997 mainly on the ground that the amendment was sought after 10 years of filing of the appeal, which was highly belated and also on the ground that by means of the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to introduce new facts, which would change the nature of the entire suit and thus, the amendment came to be rejected. The court also considered the ground for amendment, which was that when the new counsel was engaged at the appellate stage, he had suggested certain amendments, based upon which the amendment was filed, which contention was also rejected by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Sri Harihar Prasad; Second Appeal No.207 of 1983, decided on 28th September, 1984 to argue that it is a settled principle that the amendment should be liberally allowed to decide the real controversy in between the parties, even if, there are certain suggestions at the instances of lawyer, the plaintiff should not be denied the remedy to cure the defect. 5. The other case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner of this Court in case of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Munni Devi, Civil Revision No.60 of 1991, wherein in paragraph 9, the Court observed that the intent of the Court should be to decide the real controversy in between the parties and amendment cannot be denied unless serious injury or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. 6. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another (2002) 7 SCC 559. The relevant paragraph No.9 is quoted herein-below: "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-form 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." 7. Reliance is also placed upon the judgement in the case of Smt. Shahjaha Vs. District Judge, Faizabad, wherein the principles as relied upon in the above referred judgements were reiterated. 8. In light of the said, it is argued that the amendment application ought to have been allowed and the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. Considering the submissions made at Bar and on perusal of the foundation of the plaint, the entire case set up by the petitioner as a plaintiff was that he was in possession since time immemorial. The amendment as sought after 10 years of filing of appeal, was to the effect that the pedigree of the plaintiff was sought to be introduced. The said introduction was clearly an afterthought and was with a view to further complicate the issues. As the entire foundation of the petitioner was that he was in possession since the time immemorial, the requirement of pleading the pedigree was not necessary and was rightly not allowed after 10 years of filing of the appeal. 10. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. It is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench