Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babita Devi vs Vikram Singh on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
251 CR No.1612 of 2021
Date of Decision: 21.01.2025
Babita Devi ...Petitioner
V/s
Vikram Singh ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the respondent.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated
25.03.2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Divn.), Kurukshetra, vide which the application filed by the respondent-
plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short the "CPC") was allowed.
2. A suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) was filed by the
respondent-plaintiff. The suit was resisted by way of written statement
(Annexure P-2), in which the execution of the agreement to sell was denied
and it was averred that the document relied upon by the plaintiff was a forged
and fabricated document. Subsequently, an application dated 21.01.2019
(Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the respondent-
plaintiff seeking amendment to the effect that the date of the agreement to sell
be read as 10.06.2014 instead of 15.05.2014. By way of the impugned order,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008561
the said application was allowed leading to the filing of the present revision
petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated
25.03.2021 is not sustainable, for, the respondent-plaintiff could not have been
permitted to fill up the lacunae by way of amendment. Reference has been
made to the agreement to sell dated 15.05.2014, which has been annexed with
the petition as Annexure P-5. It has been submitted that the date of purchase
of the stamp papers was 10.06.2014 and when an objection was raised in the
written statement, the application for amendment was moved.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-
plaintiff submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 25.03.2021, as the
case is at its initial stage and only the date of the agreement is to be changed.
He submits that the date '15.05.2014' was mentioned as a result of a
typographical error and the trial Court rightly permitted the amendment.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
7. Order 6 Rule 17 lays down as under:-
"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party
to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may
be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for
the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after
the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in
spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial."
8. The law regarding amendment of pleadings was considered by
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008561
Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 27, wherein the
guidelines were laid down:-
"67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment.
(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
and effective adjudication of the case?
(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide?
(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of
money;
(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;
(5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and
(6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments
if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation
on the date of application."
9. The impugned order shall have to be tested on the touchstone of
the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid
judgment, as also keeping in view the statutory provisions. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the amendment was not bona fide and was sought to be
made only to fill up the lacunae. It has to be borne in mind that the date of
agreement to sell was mentioned in the plaint as 15.05.2014. A specific plea
was raised by the petitioner-defendant that the document was a forged and
fabricated document. Further, the date of purchase of the stamp papers is
shown to be 10.06.2014. Still further, in the legal notice issued by the
plaintiff also, the date of the agreement to sell is mentioned as 15.05.2014.
Under the circumstances, allowing the amendment would change the entire
nature of the suit and also permit the respondent-plaintiff to fill up the
lacunae, which is not permissible.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008561
10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the
present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25.03.2021
(Annexure P-8) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.),
Kurukshetra is set aside and the application for amendment stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
January 21, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
