Court Allows Amendment for Mesne Profits in Suit, Dismissing Petitioner's Objections
In a recent decision, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Maneesh Sharma, dismissed a writ petition challenging the amendment of a plaint in a property dispute case. The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow an amendment seeking the inclusion of mesne profits, emphasizing that the amendment was ancillary to the main reliefs of declaration, possession, and injunction.
The case, titled "Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v. Fanishwar Sharma," involved a dispute over the rightful ownership and possession of property. The plaintiff, Fanishwar Sharma, claimed ownership based on an allotment letter from 1981 and sought to amend the plaint to include a claim for mesne profits, arguing the defendant's possession was unlawful following a 2025 court order.
The defendant, Bhawani Singh Shekhawat, opposed the amendment, citing a pending appeal against the 2025 order and claiming the amendment would change the suit's nature. However, the trial court allowed the amendment, compensating for the delay with monetary costs.
Justice Sharma, in his order dated May 6, 2026, affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the amendment did not alter the suit's nature and was necessary for effective adjudication. He further noted that the delay in filing the amendment could be mitigated by costs, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.
The judgment underscores the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, noting that such petitions should only address jurisdictional errors or legal infirmities. With this ruling, the court reinforced the principle that amendments to pleadings should be permitted to facilitate comprehensive resolution of disputes without unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC permits amendment of pleadings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure proper adjudication of the controversy. Mere delay in filing the amendment application is not sufficient for rejection if the delay can be compensated monetarily.
Statutory provision(s): Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v. Fanishwar Sharma, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2905682
