[2025:RJ-JP:45467] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17149/2025 Nandkishore S/o Late Shri Nathuram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House No.13, Road No.2, Prathap Bas, Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. Madanlal S/o Late Shir Devisahaya, R/o Road No.2, Pratap Bass Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar (Deceased). Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Late Shri Madanlal, R/o Road No.2, Pratap Bass Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar. Sanskar Saini S/o Late Madanlal, R/o Road No.2, Pratap Bass Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar. Sakshi Saini D/o Late Madanlal, R/o Road No.2, Pratap Bass Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar. 2. Nagar Parishad Through Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Townhall Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar Raj. 3. Nagar Parishad Through President, Nagar Parishad Townhall Alwar Tehsile And District Alwar Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge No.2, Alwar in Civil Suit No.397/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking amendment of the plaint, was rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present petitioner filed a suit for injunction on 20.09.2013, and in reply to the said plaint, the respondents filed a written statement on 21.12.2013 wherein the respondents have disclosed the factum [2025:RJ-JP:45467] (2 of 4) [CW-17149/2025] of an agreement dated 25.08.1975 and also annexed a photocopy of the same. 3. Thereafter, on 08.02.2019 i.e. after lapse of six years from filing of written statement, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the amendment application seeking the incorporation of para 11(क), 11(ख), and 11(ग) in the plaint, on the ground that the proposed amendment is time-barred. He further submits that the learned Court below has not considered that, although the written statement was filed on 21.12.2013, the original document dated 25.08.1975 was produced on 28.01.2017; therefore, the application cannot be considered barred by limitation. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record of the case. 6. From the record, it is evident that the suit was filed on 20.09.2013 and the written statement was filed on 21.12.2013 wherein the respondents have disclosed the factum of agreement dated 25.08.1975 while annexing a xerox copy of the same, and despite the said fact was informed and brought on record, the petitioner failed to take due diligence in incorporating the pleas which are sought to be amended after a lapse of 5 years from filing of written statement. Thus, the application was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2025, being barred by time. Since a photocopy of the agreement dated 25.08.1975 was filed along with the written statement on 21.12.2013, therefore the explanation put [2025:RJ-JP:45467] (3 of 4) [CW-17149/2025] forth to cover up for the laxity in seeking amendment of the plaint i.e. that the original document of the said agreement was filed on 28.01.2017, cannot be accepted. 7. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Court below, after due appreciation of facts and law, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner while holding that the amendment so sought to be incorporated is not permissible as it is barred by limitation. 8. Even otherwise, it is a trite law that a prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:- (i) 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; (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit. 9. Since the amendment sought to be introduced by the petitioner has been filed with a gross delay, it falls within the ambit of a time-barred claim. Furthermore, the original relief sought in the plaint was for an injunction; however, by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner now seeks to introduce a plea for a declaration of the agreement dated 25.08.1975 to be null and void, which amounts to a change in the nature of the suit. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:45467] (4 of 4) [CW-17149/2025] 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 12. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-13