The trial court will now have to say, with reasons, whether a limitation objection can be decided at once or needs evidence. The Delhi High Court has set aside an order allowing a plaint amendment in a partition suit because the objection was left for later merely on the ground that the suit was at an early stage.
New Delhi: A court allowing a plaint amendment must address objections on limitation and on a change in the nature of the suit, however liberal its approach to amendments, the Delhi High Court has held while sending a partition suit back for fresh consideration [Brij Bhushan Tiwari & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari].
Justice Ajay Digpaul pronounced the judgment on November 4, 2026, and it was uploaded the next day. The trial court’s January 11, 2024 order stands set aside. The High Court did not decide whether the proposed claim is time-barred, or whether the amendment should finally be allowed.
What the trial court failed to do
Paragraph 30 holds that a limitation objection to an amendment has to be considered when the application is decided. The court must look at whether the proposed claim is prima facie time-barred, or whether disputed facts make it unsuitable to settle the point at that stage. That a suit is at an early stage does not answer the question.
Here, that examination was missing. Paragraph 31 records that the trial court had not shown whether it looked at the documents the defendants relied upon, or whether it asked if evidence was needed. The High Court left that task to the trial court in the first instance.
The objection that the amendment changed the character of the suit met the same fate. Paragraph 33 explains that the new relief concerning the same property is relevant but not conclusive. It was for the trial court to decide whether the declaration only elaborated the existing dispute or brought in a substantially distinct claim.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Upholds Belated Plaint Amendment On Property Description
How the amendment application arose
The plaintiff sued in 2014 for partition and injunctions over properties said to have been acquired by the parties’ father. In his written statement, the first defendant asserted that their father had transferred a 75-square-yard portion to his wife, Prema Tiwari, through documents dated March 25, 1998.
In February 2019, the plaintiff applied to amend the plaint, seeking to add Prema Tiwari as a defendant and to obtain a declaration that the disputed documents were null and void. The trial court allowed the amendment on payment of ₹4,000 as costs, observing that issues had not yet been framed and that limitation could be examined through evidence later.
The competing positions
The defendants said the plaintiff knew of the alleged transfer before he received the October 2014 written statement. They relied on a 2012 police action-taken report, an order recording that the report was supplied, and a complaint made in April 2014. According to them, the proposed declaration was barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and would take away a defence they had acquired through the passage of time.
The plaintiff disagreed with that reading of the documents and maintained that he learnt of the alleged transfer from the written statement. He also questioned the genuineness of the transfer documents and argued that the amendment was needed to resolve the existing property dispute. The High Court did not decide these competing factual claims.
A fresh hearing, with every contention open
The amendment application has been restored to its original number. The trial court is to hear both sides and pass a reasoned order, preferably within four weeks. The supervisory petition was allowed on those terms and the pending applications were disposed of.
The judgment keeps the usual liberal approach to necessary amendments but requires courts to deal with objections that could affect their permissibility. It does not create an automatic bar on every amendment opposed on limitation grounds, and it does not settle the parties’ ownership claims.
Case: Brij Bhushan Tiwari & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Case number: CM(M) 2554/2024
CNR: DLHC010273402024
Court and bench: Delhi High Court; Justice Ajay Digpaul
Decision: November 4, 2026; uploaded November 5, 2026
Outcome: Order allowing amendment set aside; application restored for fresh decision; merits and all contentions left open.
