Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Batra And Another vs Kashish Batra And Others on 5 February, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [1]
129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-757-2025
Date of decision: 05.02.2025
Raj Kumar Batra and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Kashish Batra and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2025 and
23.01.2025 (Annexures P-4 and P-6) passed by the trial Court wherein
amendment application of respondent No.1 was allowed and application of
the petitioners for filing reply to the amendment application, after the
passing of the order dated 09.01.2025 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the
present case, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect
that he is owner in possession of the property in question, on the plea that
the property was joint family property, inasmuch as, the parties constituted
a joint hindu family. Subsequently, an application for amendment was filed
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for including other properties, which as per the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [2]
case of respondent No.1 were also purchased from the joint funds. It is
submitted that respondent No.1 had not been diligent in filing the
application for amendment, inasmuch as, the suit was of the year 2018
whereas the application had been filed in the year 2022. It is further
submitted that even the order dated 23.01.2025 to the extent that the
petitioners have not been permitted to file reply to the said application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be
permitted to file reply and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be
decided afresh.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has
perused the paper book and finds that the impugned orders are in
accordance with law, and deserve to be upheld and the present revision
petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated
hereinafter.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, who is a relative of the
petitioners, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent No.1
is owner in possession of the property in question to the extent of 1/6th
share being his share in the joint family property and a consequential relief
of restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff was also sought. The said plea was based on the ground that the
parties constituted a joint hindu family and the family chart was detailed in
para 1 of the plaint and it was further averred that the property in question
was purchased from the joint family funds. In the suit, apart from
petitioners, their relatives and relatives of respondent No.1-plaintiff, Indian
Overseas Bank was impleaded as defendant No.7 and State of Haryana was
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [3]
impleaded as defendant No.8. In the plaint, injunction was sought from
restraining the defendants, which included the bank as well as the State,
from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, auction etc. in
any manner and also from restraining defendant No.8 i.e., State of Haryana
from using coercive methods to recover the loan amount from loan account
No.TL-129703351200006. A perusal of the record would show that
defendant No.7-bank had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is barred and the said application is pending adjudication. The
plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC on the plea that he had learnt from reliable sources on 26.03.2021 that
there were two other properties which were also purchased from the joint
funds of the family and thus, the plaintiff wanted to include the said
properties in the suit.
5. On 05.01.2024, the trial Court had passed the following order:-
"Present: Shri Surin Singla, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Mohan Monga, Advocate for defendants No.1
to 6.
Sh. Charanjiv Singh Pasricha, Advocate for
defendant No.7
Sh. Vijay Kaushik, Govt Pleader for defendant
No.8.
Cost paid by learned counsel for plaintiff. Reply to
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed. Another
application under Section CPC read with order 7 Rule 11 CPC
filed by defendant No.7.
Reply to application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC not
filed by defendants. Neither cost paid. Further adjournment
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [4]
in this regard is not justified. Hence, defendants are forfeited
their right to file their reply to the application under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC.
As plaintiff has already moved application under Order
6 Rule 17 for amendment of plaint, said application is liable to
be decided prior to application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Accordingly adjourned to 23.04.2024 for arguments
upon application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Date of Order: 05.01.2024 Sd/-
(Sandeep Chauhan)
ACJ(SD), Panipat,
UID: HR0271"
6. A perusal of the above order would show that the present
petitioners who are defendant Nos.1 and 3 had not filed reply to the said
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and had also not paid costs which
were earlier imposed and thus, had forfeited their right to file reply to the
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The zimni orders prior to the order
dated 05.01.2024 have not been annexed with the present petition. At any
rate, the fact that cost was imposed and was not paid could not be disputed
before this Court. Moreover, the order dated 05.01.2024 has not been
challenged at any stage, even in the present petition. Thus, the second
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that
the petitioners should have been granted right to file reply to the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is meritless and deserves to be rejected
outrightly. Moreover, the Full Bench of this Court in case titled as Shri
Anand Parkash Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Rai and another, reported as
1981 PLR 555, had held that in case, the case was adjourned and costs were
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [5]
imposed and yet the parties failed to pay the costs on the next date of
hearing, then it was mandatory on the Courts to disallow prosecution of suit
or defence as the case may be. Thus, the order dated 05.01.2024 was in
consonance with the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment.
7. Since, the reply was not filed by the petitioners, the trial Court
vide order dated 09.01.2025, after taking into consideration the fact that the
case was at the initial stage, inasmuch as, admittedly even the issues have
not been framed as of yet and also the fact that nature of the suit would not
change, had allowed the amendment. The said order is legal, and deserves to
be upheld, inasmuch as, the amendment is necessary for full and proper
adjudication of the case. The case as per the plaint is based on the plea that
the suit property is joint hindu family property and the said property has
been purchased from the joint family funds and even the two properties
which have been mentioned in the application for amendment are also stated
to have been purchased from the joint family funds and thus, the said
amendment would help in finally adjudicating the case between the parties.
Moreover, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the trial has not
commenced, inasmuch as, the issues have not been framed as of yet and
there is nothing to rebut the plea raised by respondent No.1-plaintiff to the
effect that he had learnt about the factum of the said two properties having
been purchased from the joint family funds on 26.03.2021 i.e., after filing of
the suit and thus, the same was a subsequent event. The application thus,
cannot be said to have been filed after unexplained delay.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N.
Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, reported
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017010
CR-757-2025 [6]
as 2006(12) SCC 1, had observed that trial is deemed to commence when
the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.
9. After passing of the order dated 09.01.2025, frivolous
application was filed by the petitioners for grant of permission to file reply
to the said application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC although the said
application had already been allowed and thus, the said application for grant
of permission to file reply has also been rightly dismissed vide order dated
23.01.2025. It was observed by the trial Court that the reply was not filed by
defendant Nos.1 and 3 and on 04.10.2023, final opportunity was given to
the petitioners and other defendants to file reply subject to cost of Rs.500/-
and on the next date of hearing, neither the cost was paid nor reply had been
filed and, therefore, on 05.01.2024, the right to file reply was forfeited. It
was observed that there was no ground to recall/review the order dated
05.01.2024.
10. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned orders are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and
the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly, dismissed.
05.02.2025 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
