Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chander vs Chander Kant Gautam And Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
CR-1371-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(126)
CR-1371-2025
Date of Decision: - 06.03.2025
Jagdish Chander
....Petitioner
Versus
Chander Kant Gautam and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, and
Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned
order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), Panipat, vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed in
Civil Suit bearing No.250 of 2017.
2. Present revision petition has been filed by defendant No.1. A
perusal of the paper-book would show that respondent No.1-plaintiff had
filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction and in the said
suit, challenge was made to certain sale deeds. The petitioner had filed the
written statement on 25.08.2017. On 05.04.2018, respondent No.1-
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
amendment of the plaint and by virtue of the said application, the
respondent No.1/plaintiff wanted to add the prayer for possession. The
said amendment was allowed on 28.05.2018. The petitioner through his
counsel had been appearing in the matter but subsequently stopped
appearing and thus was proceeded against ex-parte on 04.10.2022. The
respondent No.1/plaintiff filed another application dated 15.05.2023 for
amendment of the plaint (which is the amendment in question) with
respect to deletion of paragraphs laying challenge to sale deeds, on the
ground that a suit bearing No.294 of 2017 titled as 'Jagdish Chander Vs.
Reshma and others' had been instituted and in the said suit, respondent
No.1-plaintiff had been impleaded as defendant No.7 and the trial Court
vide judgment dated 31.10.2022 (Ex.P6 & Ex.7) had dismissed the said
suit and had upheld the validity of the sale deeds, which had been
challenged by the said Jagdish Chander (defendant No.1). It was stated in
the said application that since the civil court had upheld the validity of the
sale deeds, thus, respondent No.1/plaintiff wanted to delete the challenge
to the said sale deeds.
3. Since the present petitioner was proceeded against ex parte,
thus, there was no contest on behalf of the petitioner to the said
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 15.05.2023 and the trial
Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 had allowed the said amendment.
While allowing the said amendment, it was observed by the trial Court
that since the amendment was based upon a subsequent event i.e. in view
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
of the judgment passed in 'Jagdish Chander Vs. Reshma and others' and
since the plaintiff was the master of the case and the present petitioner
had already been proceeded against ex parte on 04.10.2022, thus, the
amendment was allowed. Subsequent to the same, vide order dated
02.05.2024, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex
parte proceeding was allowed "at this stage". In the said order, it was
observed by the trial Court that the reasons given for non-appearance by
the petitioner were unjust but the same was allowed in the interest of
justice. The petitioner has now after a delay of more than one year and
seven months chosen to file the present revision petition challenging the
order dated 04.07.2023 by raising the plea that the amendment allowed is
contrary to the original plaint and that prayer for possession has been
added by the plaintiff.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper-book and finds that the present revision petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, estoppel and
even on merits.
5. The order dated 04.07.2023 has been sought to be challenged
after a delay of more than one year and seven months. The petitioner had
admittedly filed the written statement and was thus aware of the
proceedings, yet he chose not to appear and was thus proceeded against
ex parte on 04.10.2022 and when the impugned order dated 04.07.2023
was passed, the petitioner had not joined the proceedings and had not
even contested the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff for
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
amendment and thus, it is not now open to the petitioner to challenge the
said order. Moreover, a perusal of the order dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure
P-8) would show that the application filed by the petitioner for setting
aside ex-parte proceeding was allowed subsequent to the impugned order
dated 04.07.2023 and it was specifically mentioned in the same that the
application had been allowed "at this stage" and the petitioner is estopped
from challenging the order dated 04.07.2023. Further, a perusal of the
order dated 04.07.2023 would show that the said amendment had been
allowed after taking into consideration the subsequent development
which had been projected by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in his
application dated 15.05.2023, which was to the effect that after the filing
of the suit, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022 had
upheld the validity of the sale deeds which were challenged by the
present petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the said earlier suit and that
since the respondent No.1/plaintiff was also a defendant in the said suit
i.e. defendant No.7 therein, thus, he had sought to delete the challenge to
the said sale deeds.
6. It is a matter of settled law that on the basis of the subsequent
events, the plaintiff would be entitled to make the necessary amendment.
It would be further relevant to mention that as far as the argument on
behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction the prayer for possession has been permitted to be
added, it would be relevant to note that the said amendment was already
allowed vide order dated 28.05.2018 (Anneuxre P-5), which is not the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
subject matter of challenge before this Court and thus, the said argument
is meritless and deserves to be rejected.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam
Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil", reported as (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at
the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or
courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of
appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also
observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down
the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227 but at the same time, it
must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not
correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence
under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be
kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to
a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to
maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under
Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline.
8. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while
exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032015
accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision
petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
( VIKAS BAHL )
March 06, 2025 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
6 of 6
