Rajasthan HC Upholds Plaint Amendment Adding Mesne Profits Claim, Finds It Ancillary to Main Relief

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court's order allowing amendment of a plaint to add a mesne profits claim of Rs. 20,000 per month, holding the amendment ancillary and not altering the suit's nature.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, on 6 May 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Bhawani Singh Shekhawat, who had challenged a trial court order permitting his opponent to amend the plaint in a long-running property dispute. Justice Maneesh Sharma, sitting singly, found that the amendment, which sought to add a claim for mesne profits at Rs. 20,000 per month, was purely ancillary to the existing reliefs of declaration, possession, and permanent injunction, and did not change the nature of the suit. The court also held that the scope of interference under Article 227 at such a nascent stage of trial is quite restricted, and that the petitioner remained free to contest the amended pleadings on merits by filing an amended written statement.

The Property Dispute and the Suit Before the Trial Court

The underlying civil suit, Fanishwar Sharma v. Bhawani Singh (Civil Suit No. 14/2012), was filed by Fanishwar Sharma before the Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. Sharma claimed to be the rightful owner of the suit property by virtue of an allotment letter dated 26.04.1981 issued by Gulab Bari Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, and sought declaration, possession, and permanent injunction.

Bhawani Singh Shekhawat, the defendant in that suit and the petitioner before the High Court, filed a written statement asserting that he was the rightful owner of the property under a sale deed dated 21.05.2009 executed by Jabbar Singh, son of Gokul Singh. He also claimed long-standing possession over the property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The matter had reached the stage of plaintiff's evidence when Sharma filed an application dated 11.09.2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add a new paragraph, Para No. 8(d), to the plaint. The application was premised on an order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 144/2024, in which a suit for permanent injunction filed by Shekhawat in respect of the same property was dismissed. Sharma contended that this order established that Shekhawat's possession was unlawful, and that he was therefore entitled to mesne profits at Rs. 20,000 per month.

Shekhawat's Objections to the Amendment

Shekhawat opposed the amendment application on three grounds. First, he argued that the order dated 27.03.2025 had not attained finality because he had preferred an appeal against it, and the amendment ought not to have been allowed while that appeal remained pending. Second, he contended that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. Third, he submitted that the application was filed at a highly belated stage and should be rejected on that ground alone.

The trial court, after hearing both sides, allowed the amendment application and permitted the incorporation of Para No. 8(d) in the plaint. It also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on Sharma for the delay in filing the application. Shekhawat then approached the High Court under Article 227.

How the High Court Reasoned

Justice Maneesh Sharma examined the text of the newly added Para No. 8(d), which stated that Shekhawat was in unauthorised occupation of the suit property and that Sharma was entitled to mesne profits at Rs. 20,000 per month from the date of filing of the suit.

The court found that the main reliefs in the suit remained declaration, possession, and injunction. The addition of a mesne profits claim was, in the court's view, merely ancillary to those reliefs. The trial court had itself observed that the question of mesne profits would arise for consideration only if a decree were passed in the suit. On that basis, the High Court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit.

On the delay argument, the court noted that evidence had not yet commenced in the suit. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Private Ltd. & Ors. (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27961 of 2010), which the trial court had taken guidance from. The High Court accepted that the trial court had properly addressed the delay by imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000, and held that mere delay in making an amendment application is not by itself sufficient to refuse the amendment, since delay can be compensated in terms of money.

On the argument that the appeal against the order dated 27.03.2025 was still pending, the court did not find this a bar to allowing the amendment. The amendment application was grounded on that order, but the trial court had not treated the order as final or conclusive on the question of possession. The mesne profits claim would only crystallise if a decree were eventually passed.

The court reiterated the settled position that the purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings on such terms as may be just, where such amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

On the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, the court held that interference in petitions filed under Article 227 in matters of allowing amendment to a plaint, particularly at a nascent stage of trial, is quite restricted. The impugned order was found to be well-reasoned, justified, and within the four corners of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity in the trial court's order.

The court also observed that Shekhawat, as defendant, would remain at liberty to controvert the amended pleadings on merits by filing an amended written statement during the course of the trial.

Outcome

Justice Maneesh Sharma dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8024/2026 on 6 May 2026. The order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, allowing the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, was upheld. All other pending applications in the writ petition were disposed of.