Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Iqbal Kaur And Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031831
CR-731-2025
2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
126 CR
CR-731-2025
Date of decision:
decision:06.03.2025
GURMAIL SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
...PETITIONER
VS.
IQBAL KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
S
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL,
SEHGAL J.
1. Petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court assailing order
dated 14.01.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge (Senior
Senior Division),
Division Phagwara, whereby an application filed by him
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint,, has been
dismissed
dismissed.
2. Mr. Ajaivir Singh, counsel
ounsel for the petitioner has contended that
by way of an amendment, petitioner/plaintiff has sought correction of a
clerical mistake, which would have provided clarity and aid
aided the Court to
arrive at a just decision. He asserts that by way of an amendment, no new
cause of action is being raised,
raised nor does the proposed amendment alter the
nature of the suit. He contends that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031831
CR-731-2025
the application without appreciating the legal position as has been settled by
the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev
Sanj
Builders Private Limited and another (2022
2022) 16 SCC 1.
3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered his
submission besides examining the documents placed on the record.
4. Plaintiff filed a suit,, Annexure P
P-2, for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 29.01.2018 and for directing the defendants to
execute and register the sale deed for land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas in
Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Plain
Plaintiff also sought permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or
mortgaging the suit land. An alternative relief of recovery of Rs.85.70 lacs
was sought from defendant No.2. Upon service, defendants No.1 & 2 filed a
written statement dated 10.10.2022, Annexure P
P-4, categorically denying the
agreement. A stand was taken that the alleged agreement to sell dated
29.01.2018 is a forged and fabricated document and earnest money of Rs.30
lacs was never paid. The
The signatures of defendant No.2 as attorney of Surjit
Singh on the alleged agreement was also denied. On the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 08.08.2024, Annexure
P-5,
5, and the proceedings were adjourned for leading evidencee by the
plaintiff, who sought repeated adjournments. After "special last opportunity"
opportunity
was granted to the plaintiff to produce his entire evidence, application,
Annexure P-7,
P 7, was filed for the amendment of the plaint. After contest, this
th
application has been rejected vide order impugned herein.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031831
CR-731-2025
5. The plea of the plaintiff that by way of the proposed
amendment, he intends to correct the date and bring about more clarity is an
after thought.
thought The entire case of the plaintiff is based on agreement
eement to sell
dated 29.01.2018, which has been specifically denied by the defendants in
their written statement filed in October, 2022. D
Despite
espite being aware of the
denial of the agreement by the defendants, no step was taken by the plaintiff
for almost two years to move any application. The Trial Court even
proceeded to frame the issues onn the basis of the pleadings of the parties.
parties
Issue No.1 framed by the Trial Court is to the fact as to whether plaintiff is
entitled to the relief of possession
on by way of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 29.01.2018. Under the garb of the application for
amendment, whereby the plaintiff seeks to modify the date of agreement to
sell,, the entire nature of the suit would change and a totally new case is
being sought to be set up which would displace the earlier case pleaded by
the plaintiff.
6. Amendment of the plaint is not a matter of right. After the
amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2022, a proviso has
been added to Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, which provides that after the trial has
commenced a party seeking amendment has to show due diligence. There is
commenced,
no explanation in the application filed by the plaintiff
plaintiff, which exhibits the
due diligence on his part.. Mere fact that the defendant
defendants can be compensated
with the cost does not meet the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC.
7. In Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008) 5
SCC 117,
117 Supreme Court has observed that the entire object of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031831
CR-731-2025
amendment to Order 6 Rule 17, CPC as introduced in the year 2002 is to
stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the
commencement of trial,
trial to avoid surprises and that the parties have sufficient
knowledge of each others case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing
the application. Once, the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be
very difficult for any side to reconcile.
reconcile Proviso
roviso to Order 6 Rule 17, CPC
limits the power of the Court to allow amendment after the commencement
of the trial but grants discretion to the court to allow amendment if it feels
that a party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of
trial despite
spite due diligence. In Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others (2024) 3
SCC 705,, Supreme Court has held that a heavy burden is cast on the party
seeking amendment after the commencement of trial to show that in spite of
due diligence,
diligence, such amendment could not be sought earlier. Plea
lea of
oversight,, cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the
plaint when facts were to the knowledge of the party. The judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sanjeev Builders's case relied upon by counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present ca
case.
se. This Court does
not find any perversity or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court.
8. Petition being bereft of merit, is dismissed, though with no
order as to costs.
cost
06.03.2025
.2025 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
