[2025:RJ-JP:43880] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16586/2025 1. Jagdish S/o Pokarmal, aged about 70 Years, R/o Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 2. Sawarmal S/o Ramdayal, aged about 73 Years, R/o Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. Shivnarayan (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Representatives: Shankar Lal S/o Late Shivnarayan, aged about 67 Years, R/o Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Vishnu Kumar S/o Late Shivnarayan, aged about 60 Years, R/o Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Ramji Lal S/o Late Shivnarayan, aged about 55 Years, R/o Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 2. State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur, Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of Bikaner, Branch Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj). 3. Ramdayal S/o Mool Chand, (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives: 3/1. Smt. Shanti Devi, aged about 82 Years, W/o Late Ramdayal (Since Deceased) 3/2. Swarmal S/o Ramdayal, aged about 73 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.(Rajasthan) 3/3. Smt. Sarvani Devi D/o Ramdayal, W/o Vinod Kumar Garg, aged about 70 Years, R/o Badawas Ka Mohalla, Kotputli, District Jaipur. 3/4. Smt. Gayatri Devi D/o Ramdayal, W/o Ramesh Chand, aged about 68 Years, R/o Radho Madho Ki Gali, Khandela Bazar, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 3/5. Smt. Savitri Devi D/o Ramdayal, W/o Murari Lal Agrawal, aged about 65 Years, R/o Ajitgarh, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Khandelwal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:43880] (2 of 4) [CW-16586/2025] 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar in Civil Suit No.2081/2014, whereby the application filed by the respondents- defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for amending the written-statement & counter-claim was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the application at a belated stage of the proceedings, as it will change the nature of the suit and falls within the ambit of a time-barred claim; and further prays that the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 may kindly be set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Trial Court after taking a holistic view of the matter, has permitted the respondents to incorporate Para No.10-B and 13(1) in their written statement/counter-claim, whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the prayer for possession to be added in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, as the Trial Court has taken the correct view that in case, the respondents are not allowed to amend the written-statement or counter claim, they will have to file a separate suit which will lead to multiplicity of proceedings; further, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the previous written statement and in the suit, evidence of the plaintiff is yet to be commenced, therefore no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:43880] (3 of 4) [CW-16586/2025] 5. It is apt to refer to the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in B.K.N. Narayana Pillai v. P. Pillai and Ors.1 wherein it was held as under: "3. The-purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in, the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. (Emphasis Supplied) ........ 5........The alternative plea sought to be incorporated in the written statement is in fact the extension of the plea of the respondent- plaintiff and rebuttal to the issue framed regarding liability of the appellant of being dispossessed on proof of the fact that he was a licensee liable to be evicted in accordance with the provisions of law. The mere fact that the appellant had filed the application after a prolonged delay could not be made a ground for rejecting his prayer particularly when the respondent-plaintiff could be compensated by costs......." (Emphasis Supplied) 6. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Ors.2 has held as under: "6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar vs. Makhan Singh3 has held that the discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 is an unfettered discretion conferred upon the Courts to allow amendment in pleadings. The delay in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the 1 (2000) 1 SCC 712 2 (2001) 2 SCC 472 3 2009 (9) UJ SC 4486 [2025:RJ-JP:43880] (4 of 4) [CW-16586/2025] same. The Court must do full and complete justice between the parties, subject to payment of adequate costs to the opposite party. 8. In view of the ratios laid down by the Apex Court above and a bare reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Trial Court has, after due deliberation and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by imposing a cost of Rs.1,000/- for the delay in filing the same; therefore the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner lack merit; and thus, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application. 9. It is further evident that the cost amount has already been paid on 26.09.2025 and the amended written-statement has already been taken on record. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /7