The case revolved around a property dispute involving siblings over a house in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The property was initially purchased by their late father, Sh. Gyan Chand Goyal, and later a Will executed by their mother, Smt. Katoribai, bequeathed the property solely to one sibling, the defendant. Following the mother's death, another sibling, the plaintiff, contested the validity of the Will, claiming her rightful share in the property.

Initial Lawsuit: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a 1/5th share of the property, asserting it was ancestral and rightfully belonged to all siblings.

Defendant's Claim: The defendant produced the Will, asserting it established his sole ownership of the property, leading to a dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

Application for Amendment: The plaintiff sought to amend her plaint to challenge the Will’s genuineness and include movable properties in the dispute. The initial amendment application was rejected by the trial court.

Supreme Court Intervention: Aggrieved by the rejection, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court, which ultimately allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court’s decision.

The relevant legal provision for amendments to pleadings is outlined in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. This rule allows parties to amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided such amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Timeliness: Amendments should ideally be sought before the trial begins. If sought after, the party must demonstrate due diligence in raising the matter earlier.

Justice and Fairness: The court should ensure that the amendment does not work injustice to the other party and is essential for a fair adjudication of the issues at hand.

In its judgment, the Court emphasized several critical points:

The genuineness of the Will was central to resolving the property dispute. If the Will were found to be invalid, it would significantly alter the nature of ownership claims among the siblings. The court noted the trial court’s approach was overly technical, prioritizing procedural delays over substantive justice. The Court adopted a liberal approach to amendments, stressing that procedural rules should not hinder the determination of substantive rights and obligations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of allowing amendments that are essential for addressing the core issues of a case. By permitting the plaintiff to challenge the Will's validity, the court not only aimed to ensure a fair hearing but also sought to prevent prolonged legal battles. This decision serves as a reminder that the justice system must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities, facilitating a fair resolution of disputes. The ruling is a significant step toward ensuring that disputes of inheritance and property rights can be resolved efficiently and justly, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding fairness in legal proceedings.