In a packed courtroom on Tuesday afternoon, Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a last-minute attempt by a plaintiff to amend his plaint in a 30-year-old property dispute. The judge’s tone was firm, occasionally even a bit exasperated, as he remarked that such belated changes would “drag on an already ageing suit” and defeat the entire purpose of timely justice. The matter ended quickly, with the court dismissing the petition outright and imposing costs.
Background
The dispute goes back three decades. The petitioner, Bhoop Singh Gola, had filed a suit seeking to prevent the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing parts of his property. Over the years, the case inched forward and finally reached the stage of rebuttal arguments - basically the last leg before judgment.
DMRC's 5G Rollout Move Upheld: Delhi High Court Rejects Crest Digitel Appeal Against Nomination
In October this year, however, the petitioner attempted to amend seven paragraphs of the plaint and even the prayer clause, essentially inserting additional references to “defendant no. 2” (DDA). This was not the first such attempt. A previous amendment plea had already been dismissed earlier in July, and the order was never challenged.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kathpalia didn’t mince words while rejecting the fresh plea. “The suit is at its fag end. Final arguments have been advanced. At this stage, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 clearly applies,” the bench observed, pointing out that amendments cannot be allowed unless the party proves the facts were not earlier known despite due diligence.
Supreme Court Sets New National Formula to Decide Seniority of District Judges Across India
The judge noted that the petitioner was fully aware of defendant no. 2’s role since the beginning. “It is not that defendant no. 2 is now sought to be brought on record for the first time,” he remarked, making it clear that this was not a case of discovering new facts.
Another sharp observation followed soon after. The petitioner had argued that the delay happened because the previous lawyer failed to add these points. Justice Kathpalia was unimpressed. “This practice of throwing trash on the previous counsel must be deprecated,” the bench said, adding that lawyers shouldn’t be blamed casually for strategic choices made years ago.
What seemed to bother the court most was the likely consequence of accepting the amendment: reopening the entire trial. “Allowing this at the fag end would be the worst travesty of justice,” the court commented, noting that defendant no. 2 would then have to file fresh pleadings, and the trial would effectively restart.
Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Tribunal Reforms Act After Repeated Violations of Judicial
The judge also hinted that the petitioner might be trying to stall the case deliberately. “It appears the petitioner is trying to somehow protract the proceedings,” the bench observed.
Decision
Concluding that there was “no infirmity” in the trial court’s order, Justice Kathpalia dismissed the petition as “totally frivolous.” The court not only upheld the lower court’s decision but also imposed a ₹25,000 cost on the petitioner, to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, in addition to earlier costs already levied. With this, the matter - along with all pending applications - was disposed of.
Case Title: Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & DDA – Delhi High Court Rejects Late Amendment in 30-Year-Old Suit
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Case Type: Petition under Article 227 challenging trial court order
Date of Decision: 18 November 2025
