Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Land Development Dispute, Sets Aside Bombay High Court Order.


15 October 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

The Supreme Court granted a civil appeal lodged by landowners to modify their plaint in a pending property development case, overruling concurrent orders of the Bombay High Court and the Civil Court at Pune which had dismissed their request for amendment. The ruling, passed on October 15, 2025, by a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, upholds the proposition that modifications required for full adjudication are not to be rejected on the basis of technicalities.

The case arose out of a development agreement signed on June 30, 2011, between the appellants—landowners Rajmal alias Rajesh Chandanmal Luniya and another—and the respondent developers, for commercial construction on the land of the appellants. The agreement mandated the developers to start construction within three years. For failure on this condition, the appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 2017 before the Civil Court at Pune, requesting a declaration that the development agreement was cancelled and non-enforceable.


 

 

At the course of the proceedings, some observations in an interim injunction order pointed to the fact that the respondent developers were in possession of the property. As such, the appellants made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint so as to include a prayer for possession, if the declaration was decreed in their favor.

The request was rejected by the trial court on the basis that the amendment was contrary to the original suit and also that the appellants had not shown due diligence as mandated by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17. This was reaffirmed by the Bombay High Court, prompting the appellants to seek relief in the Supreme Court.

Having heard both parties, the top court ruled that the suggested amendment didn't alter the character of the suit but looked for a consequential relief based on facts already on record. The court noted that once the respondents' possession over the involved property was observed in interim proceedings, the plaintiffs could claim possession in case of a successful decree.

The Court also explained that the plea of absence of due diligence had been wrongly interpreted by the lower courts. It explained that any delay in disposal would prejudice the plaintiffs, not the defendants, and that granting leave to amend would facilitate comprehensive determination of the true issues between the parties.

Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, and granted the appellants' amendment. The amended plaint was ordered to be put on record, with liberty to the respondents to file an amended written statement within two weeks. The trial court was also ordered to dispose of the suit within one year, ensuring speedy justice.

The judgment reaffirms the liberal approach of the Supreme Court to procedural norms for the purpose of ensuring full justice and stresses that technical demurrers should not impede determination of the rights in civil cases.


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908