RADHIKA DEVI vs BAJRANGI SINGH

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rightly denied by the High Court as it would prejudice the respondents' rights, given that the appellant was aware of the gift deed since 1988 but delayed action until 1999, thus being time-barred. The Court reaffirmed that amendments which alter accrued rights are typically refused, citing Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nunabhai Chunilal Kabarwala (1964) 2 SCR 567. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.