Don’t file any review before civil judge 

2) you can file a revision petition against a civil judge's order that rejected an amendment petition due to delay

3) Your petition should argue that the lower court's finding of delay was incorrect and that the amendment is necessary for a proper resolution of the case.

4) Clearly state that the lower court’s order is erroneous and that the amendment is crucial for a fair trial.

1. You can file a revision petition before high court to set aside the trial court order and allow your amendment petition.

2. No appeal is maintainable but you can file a revision petition.

3. You can file a revision petition before high court and can include relevant citations at the time of arguments.

A revision petition or writ petition will be maintainable against the order of rejection of amendment application 

A revision petition can be filed before the District Court or High Court under Section 115 CPC against the rejection of an amendment application by the Civil Judge, citing Supreme Court judgments that permit amendment at any stage (e.g., Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi, CA 3854/2014; Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports, (2012) 5 SCC 337). Review before the same Civil Judge is generally not maintainable for interlocutory orders rejecting amendment unless there is an error apparent on the face of record; thus, appeal/revision to the higher court is appropriate. Relevant CPC provisions: Order VI Rule 17 (Amendment of Pleadings), Section 115 (Revision), Order XLVII Rule 1 (Review).

In summary:

• File revision petition before District Court/High Court under Section 115 CPC.

• Do not file review before the same Civil Judge unless there is a clear error.

• Refer: Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi (SC, CA 3854/2014), Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (2012) 5 SCC 337.

The trial court’s rejection of your amendment application on the ground of delay is legally incorrect. The additional prayer for recovery of possession is not a new claim but a consequential relief arising from the same cause of action—challenge to the fraudulent gift deed and declaration of title. The amendment became necessary only after the death of the original plaintiff, when the legal heirs stepped in, and therefore the alleged “delay” cannot be treated as a bar.

The law is clear that delay alone is not a valid ground to refuse amendment if the amendment is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute and does not change the nature of the suit. Your suit continues to remain a declaratory title suit, and the amendment merely adds the relief that naturally follows from the declaration already sought. Denying the amendment will force you to file a separate suit for possession, which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, something courts expressly disapprove of.

A review before the same trial court is technically possible but not advisable, because a review can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the order. Here, the judge has exercised discretion (though incorrectly), and trial courts seldom reverse their own discretionary orders. The appropriate remedy is to challenge the rejection by filing either a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, depending on your state’s procedural practice. High Courts routinely set aside orders where amendments have been refused on wrong principles of law.

The Supreme Court judgments you mentioned fully support your case. In Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi (2024), the Court held that amendments can and should be allowed even at a late stage when necessary for deciding the real controversy. In Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (2012), the Court held that delay is not a stand-alone ground to reject an amendment. In Santhana Lakshmi v. Rajammal (2025), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must permit amendment even after trial has commenced if it is essential to avoid injustice. These authorities make it clear that the trial court has applied an outdated and incorrect test.

You should proceed with a High Court challenge, requesting that the rejection order be set aside and the amendment be permitted, so that the entire dispute—including possession—can be settled in a single suit. This is the fastest and legally sound route.

1. Yes, Revision can be filed in high court.

2. Same as above

3.For analysis f citations please meet an advocate . 

File a civil revision or appeal (not review) before the District Court/High Court against the rejection.
Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendment can be allowed at any stage if needed for justice.
Rely on Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi (2014) and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (2012) both hold delay alone isn’t a ground to deny amendment if it helps decide the real issue.

Review or appeal would not lie before the same judge who passed order rejecting the amendment application 

You will have to challenge that order by filing a petition in High Court under Article 227

If you seek recovery of possession you will have to pay additional court fee based on market value of the property or else the suit can be rejected under O7R11 for non payment of deficit court fee 

Also you will have to factor in limitation. Suit for recovery of possession can be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to the Plaintiff. 

However the aspects of court fee and limitation will not be decided at the stage of deciding your amendment application 

In case the HC allows your amendment application then you will have to amend your plaint and the defendant will be given opportunity to file additional WS in which the defendant can raise objections of court fee and limitation 

Dear Client, in your case, since the Civil Judge has rejected the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the correct remedy is to file a Civil Revision Petition or Appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, not a review before the same court. A review is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record — whereas here, the court has exercised discretion, which can be challenged in revision/appeal. Your reliance on Vasantha (Dead) through LRs v. Rajalakshmi (2024 SC) and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (2012) 5 SCC 337 is correct — both judgments affirm that amendments should be allowed “at any stage” of proceedings if they are necessary to determine the real question in controversy and do not change the nature of the suit. Further, S. Santhana Lakshmi v. D. Rajammal (2025 INSC) reinforces that procedural delay cannot override substantive justice if the amendment is essential for complete adjudication. Since the prayer for recovery of possession is a consequential relief arising out of the same cause of action, the denial by the trial court appears contrary to settled law. You should, therefore, approach the High Court under Article 227 or by revision under Section 115 CPC, seeking to set aside the rejection order and allow the amendment in line with these precedents. I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

You cab seek expedited hearing as you are senior citizen 

2) there shall be a separate application for each distinct relief prayed for. An "early hearing" or "expedition" is considered a distinct procedural relief, separate from the substantive reliefs sought in the main revision petition (e.g., setting aside an order).

3) make interlocutor u application 

4) file revision petition under article 227 

Here are responses to your further queries:

1. Yes — given that the original plaintiff and now petitioner is a senior citizen (70 yrs old) and the estate has been tied up for many years (over 5 years), you may request the trial court to expedite disposal of the suit. Courts have recognized that senior citizens deserve priority. For example, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that “It is the duty of the courts to see that senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether civil or criminal.” SCC Online+2Indian Kanoon+2 While there is no fixed timeline of six months, you can incorporate such a request in your petition asking for a tentative timeline.

2. Interlocutory applications for expedition can be filed — however, usually the revision petition itself (under Section 115 CPC or Article 227) can incorporate the prayer for expedited disposal. You don’t necessarily need a separate application unless you want to press separate relief (e.g., assignment to fast-track list). Including the expedition request in the revision petition saves duplication.

3. Between revision under Section 115 CPC and petition under Article 227 Constitution, the better remedy is revision under Section 115 CPC if maintainable, because it is a statutory remedy and more direct. Article 227 is broader (supervisory jurisdiction) but may be viewed as extraordinary. The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is well-settled:

   • Section 115 CPC empowers the High Court to “call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to the High Court … in which no appeal lies”—and to revise the order if the subordinate court “has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it” or “failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it” or “acted illegally or with material irregularity.” Drishti Judiciary+1

   • Article 227 gives the High Court “power of superintendence over all courts” within its territory, but is usually employed when no other remedy lies or when delay or interim orders need correction. E-Legalix+1
     Thus: file revision under Section 115 CPC as first choice; if non-maintainable, then petition under Article 227.

4. Latest judgment on expedited disposal for senior citizens: While I could not locate a specific Uttarakhand High Court judgment by name, there are several precedents. For example, the Madras High Court in M. Kasturiam­mal v. M. Saminathan (2022) observed that petitioner aged about 69 years and a senior citizen merits a direction for speedy disposal. CaseMine Also, the broader directive by Supreme Court: “All courts at district and taluka levels shall monitor disposal of cases” with 12 directions to ensure speedy disposal. Live Law You can annex a copy of such orders and ask the court to apply them in your case.

5. Additional suggestions:

   • In the revision petition, emphasise the aged condition of petitioner and limitation of life span.

   • Ask the High Court to direct a timeline (for example, disposal within six months).

   • Seek group-listing or fast-track listing for senior citizen cases in the trial court.

   • Simultaneously ensure the trial court record is updated and that no further adjournments are caused by your side.

   • Maintain full record of all previous delays/adjournments and list them in petition to show pendency is due to others’ inaction.

Petition under section 115 CPC is not advisable because it has limited scope,  instead you can file an IA IA seeking expeditious trial,  if there is an inordinate delay then you can approach high court with a writ petition under article 227 of the constitution seeking direction to trial court for an expeditious disposal owing to the difficulties faced by senior citizen due to the inordinate delay. 

Many High Courts (Madras, Kerala, Andhra, etc.) have routinely granted directions for early disposal where the petitioner is a senior citizen — these orders are persuasive and routinely relied upon to get priority listing.

High Court may be reluctant to order immediate eviction without evidence but will expedite hearing.

1. Under Section 115 CPC, you can and should request expeditious disposal of the case citing the petitioner’s senior citizen status, ideally seeking disposal within six months for declaration, possession and eviction. Courts usually give preference to senior citizens for speedy trial.

2. Interlocutory applications for expediting are generally not needed separately if the revision petition itself incorporates a clear prayer for expedition.

3. Filing the revision and expediting petition under Section 115 CPC is generally more appropriate than under Article 227 because Section 115 specifically deals with revision of lower court orders, whereas Article 227 is the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction more used for exceptional cases. Section 115 CPC petitions tend to be more structured for case management and expedition requests.

4. Uttarakhand High Court has directed expeditious disposal for senior citizens’ cases, for example in appeals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, mandating decisions within a month to one or two months timeline. The High Court has also empowered District Magistrates for eviction of trespassers on senior citizens’ property, emphasizing protection and speedy relief.

5. Suggest including all facts about senior citizen status with medical/age certificates in the petition, highlight the prolonged delay, and urge the court to prioritize and fix strict timelines based on these precedents. Also try to ground expedition prayer on humanitarian and constitutional grounds.

Yes you can do the aforesaid. Yes IA has to be filed separately.

I completely understand how important this matter is, especially since it concerns a long-pending family dispute and the property earned through your father’s and your own hard work. Given that the litigation has already been continuing for over five years and both the original and substituted plaintiffs are advanced in age, the situation indeed calls for timely and sensitive judicial intervention.

To address your first question, since the trial court has rejected the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the proper legal course is to file a civil revision petition before the High Court rather than seeking a review before the same Civil Judge. A review under Section 114 CPC is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, whereas in your case, the issue involves the legal interpretation of delay and the discretion exercised by the trial court in denying the amendment. Hence, an appeal or revision before the High Court is more appropriate.

The prayer for possession and eviction is a natural and consequential relief flowing from your declaratory claim. The absence of such a relief in the original plaint was clearly inadvertent, and since the plaintiff’s rights are continuing, the relief remains legally maintainable. The fact that your father passed away and left behind a will denying any share to the respondent son makes the amendment even more essential to resolve the dispute comprehensively.

Regarding expediting the proceedings, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC or a supervisory petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can both be used to request early disposal. However, Article 227 is generally considered more flexible and effective for this purpose because the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is broader, allowing it to issue directions for early hearing and monitoring of the trial court’s progress. Section 115 CPC, being narrower, is typically confined to correcting jurisdictional errors. Hence, filing under Article 227 with an incorporated prayer for expedition would be more practical and efficient.

It is not mandatory to file a separate interlocutory application for expediting the trial if your main revision petition already includes a specific prayer for early disposal. However, attaching a concise supporting affidavit highlighting the petitioner’s advanced age, long pendency, and hardship adds persuasive strength.

Given these circumstances, the most effective course would be to file a revision or Article 227 petition before the High Court, combining both the challenge to the rejection of the amendment and a prayer for expedited hearing. Include in your petition a short note requesting that the matter be directed for disposal within six months considering the age and health of the petitioner.

Seek stay of further proceedings in trial court pending hearing and final disposal of petition 

most probably your petition would be disposed at admission stage only 

Yes you can seek stay 

In the same revision petition you can file another application for stay of all proceedings by the trial court till the disposal of the revision petition.

If you file a revision petition then until it is disposed by the High court the trial court may not proceed with further proceedings.

You cannot file the revision petition without adding anyone as a respondent, hence it is pertinent to send notice to the respondent to hear the objection from his side before taking a decision by high court on your petition.

The time taken for disposal may be a month or two.

Serve the Respondent immediately after filing petition 

Notice has to be served to Respondent 

it should not take more than 2 months or so as it should be disposed at admission stage 

enerally if court feels that matter has to be admitted it issues notice to the parties to file reply and then disposes the same after hearing both sides