The Delhi High Court on a relatively calm Wednesday, one could sense mild impatience on the bench as Justice Girish Kathpalia began dictating the order in Bhoop Singh Gola v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. The dispute itself is older than many lawyers present - a 30-year-old civil suit that somehow managed to stretch across generations of counsels, multiple courtrooms, and countless procedural meanders.
Yet, on 18 November 2025, the High Court closed one such detour, rejecting the petitioner’s attempt to amend his plaint at the last possible moment.
Background
The original suit, filed three decades ago, concerns a plea to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and another defendant (now identified as defendant no.2) from demolishing any portion of the petitioner’s property.
Everything had nearly concluded both sides completed their final arguments, and only rebuttal submissions were left. Instead of wrapping up the case, however, the plaintiff returned with a fresh application: he wanted to amend seven paragraphs, along with the prayer clause, essentially inserting references to “defendant no.2.”
Notably, a similar amendment request had already been rejected earlier, and that earlier rejection was never challenged.
When the bench asked the petitioner’s senior counsel what new facts justified this timing, he argued that without the amendment the suit “would not get completely adjudicated.”
Court’s Observations
Justice Kathpalia seemed unconvinced from the beginning. Leaning back in his chair, he remarked that the stage of the proceedings itself created a legal barrier.
“The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in full,” the judge observed. “At this stage, the petitioner must show that these facts were not within his knowledge despite due diligence.”
In plain terms: late amendments are allowed only when the party couldn’t have known earlier, not when it simply forgot.
The court pointed out that defendant no.2 was always part of the suit, so adding new assertions about that defendant at the end made little sense.
An even sharper comment followed. The petitioner blamed his previous counsel for “inadvertently” missing the points earlier. Justice Kathpalia reacted visibly to this firm but controlled:
“The bench observed, ‘This practice of throwing trash on the previous counsel must be deprecated.’”
He added that advocates who are blamed in such pleadings never get the chance to defend themselves, making such excuses unacceptable.
Another concern was the impact on the already aged case. Allowing the amendment now would mean defendant no.2 would need fresh pleadings, followed by reopening of evidence a scenario the court described as a “travesty of justice” given the suit’s age.
Read also:- AP High Court Quashes Rowdy Sheet Against Eluru Residents, Calls Police Action Mechanical and Without Basis
The judge also noted that the petitioner appeared to be engaged in an attempt to “somehow protract the proceedings,” prolonging the matter indefinitely despite its 30-year pendency.
Decision
With these findings, Justice Kathpalia upheld the trial court’s earlier order dated 15 October 2025, rejecting the amendment request.
Calling the petition “frivolous,” the High Court dismissed it with a cost of ₹25,000, payable to the DHCLSC within two weeks, in addition to costs earlier imposed by the trial court.
The order ended decisively: the pending applications were also disposed of.
The matter now returns to the trial court for conclusion of rebuttal arguments a step that should finally bring the long-dragging case to judgment.
Case Title:- Bhoop Singh Gola v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.
