[2026:RJ-JP:20429] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7881/2026 Rajkumar Soni Son Of Shri Chandra Shekhar Soni, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Patwa, Bazar Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1 Mohanlal Son Of Jamnalal Soni, Aged About 86 Years, Currently Resident Of Saket Colony, Deoli, District Tonk (Deceased) 1.1 Sumitra Devi Daughter Of Mohan Lal Soni, Wife Of Chandramohan Soni, Currently Resident Of Sabji Mandi Ki Tek Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan 1.2 Urmila Soni Daughter Of Mohan Lal Soni, Wife Of Ghanshyam Soni, Currently Resident Of Shagun Marriage Garden Ke Samne Wali Gali, Rangbadi Kota, District Kota (Raj.) 1.3 Chandraprabha Soni Daughter Of Mohan Lal Soni, Wife Of Muralidhar Soni, Currently Resident Of Pune, Maharashtra 2 Chandrashekhar Son Of Mohanlal Soni, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Patwa, Bazar Deoli Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan) 3 Pawan Kumar Son Of Shri Chandra Shekhar Soni, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Patwa, Bazar Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan) 4 Santosh Soni Wife Of Shri Chandra Shekhar Soni, Resident Of Patwa, Bazar Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashrut Sethi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Ms. Neelam Choudhary, Ms. Nisha Verma, Ms. Neeti Mourya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 14/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.04.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Camp Court Deoli, Tonk, in Suit No. 02/2021, whereby the learned [2026:RJ-JP:20429] (2 of 5) [CW-7881/2026] Trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit seeking partition on the basis of a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020. The defendants filed their written statement and also stated that a decree may be passed in terms of the said Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree on the basis of admission. 3. Subsequently, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC contending therein that there existed another Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019 and that the rights of the parties ought to be adjudicated on the basis of the said settlement as well. 4. The said application for amendment came to be filed in the year 2026, after more than five years from the institution of the suit, when the matter was pending consideration on the defendants’ application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on the basis of admissions. 5. Therefore, the said application came to be rejected the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.04.2026. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and that the nature of the suit would also remain unchanged. [2026:RJ-JP:20429] (3 of 5) [CW-7881/2026] 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that issues had not yet been framed by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the rejection of the amendment application is unjustified. He thus submits that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr.; (2022) 16 SCC. 10. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC deserves to be allowed. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submits that the suit was filed in the year 2021 claiming rights solely on the basis of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020 and no claim whatsoever was made by the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no reference to the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019 in the subsequent family settlement dated 09.01.2020. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent also submit that the suit was specifically founded on the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020, which was duly admitted by the defendants, and accordingly an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC came to be filed. However, while the said application was pending adjudication, the plaintiff-petitioner changed his stand and sought [2026:RJ-JP:20429] (4 of 5) [CW-7881/2026] to introduce a new claim based on the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that when the suit was instituted in the year 2021, no right was claimed by the plaintiff under the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019 and such claim has now been raised after an inordinate delay of more than five years. 15. He submits that such a claim is barred by limitation as well as by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. He contends that such a belated plea cannot be permitted to be raised, particularly when the defendants had already admitted the plaintiff’s claim based on the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020 and sought passing of a decree in terms thereof. Hence, he prays that no interference is called for by this Court and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the order dated 08.04.2026 may be upheld. 16. Heard and perused the material available on records. 17. This Court finds that the plaintiff instituted the suit on 02.01.2021 claiming rights exclusively on the basis of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020 and sought adjudication of rights accordingly. No claim whatsoever was made in relation to any Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019. 18. This Court further finds that the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020 itself does not contain any reference to the alleged Memorandum dated 19.11.2019. 19. This Court also finds that the entire claim of the plaintiff, as made in the suit, had been admitted by the defendants, who [2026:RJ-JP:20429] (5 of 5) [CW-7881/2026] accordingly moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the suit, namely adjudication of rights in terms of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 09.01.2020. 20. This Court finds that thereafter the plaintiff sought to change his stand, apparently upon apprehending that he may receive a lesser share under the settlement dated 09.01.2020, and accordingly sought amendment of the plaint by introducing a claim based on the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.11.2019 after a lapse of more than five years from the filing of the suit and at a stage when the matter was pending consideration on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 21. This Court is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not only highly belated but also amounts to a complete departure from the stand originally taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. 22. Therefore, this Court also finds that the such amendment has rightly not been permitted by the learned Trial Court to be taken on record. 23. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 24. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 25. All pending application stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /20