Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sohan Lal vs Roop Chand on 26 November, 2025

CR-8601-2025
        2025 (O&M)                       -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123                                            CR-8601-2025 (O&M)

                                               Date of decision: 26.11.2025

Sohan Lal                                            ..... Petitioner


                          Versus

Roop Chand                                           ..... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

PRESENT: Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Prayer in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner/

plaintiff is for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-4)

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Camp Court,

Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby the application da dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure

P-2) filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking

amendment of plaint, plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, inter alia,

submits that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the

application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner as, it failed to

appreciate that by way of proposed pro amendment, the petitioner was only

seeking amendment of the relief clause as a result of which no prejudice

would be caused to the respondent/defendant. It is submitted that the facts

pertaining to the controversy regarding encroachment by the defend defendant

were discovered by the petitioner after recording of evidence by both the

parties. At the time of institution of the suit suit, the petitioner was not aware

1 of 6

CR-8601-2025 2025 (O&M) -2-

of the fact that respondent/defendant had in fact started construction over

the disputed Rasta. Accordingly, the petitioner ha has filed the instant

application (Annexure P-2); and is merely seeking addition of relief of

possession. It is argued that the same will have no effect upon the nature

of the suit and will not cause any prejudice to the respond respondent.

Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and

the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P P-4)

4) may be set aside. In

support, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this

Court in RSA-781-2025, RSA titled as 'Jeet Ram (since deceased) through

LRs and others vs. Smt. Santra Devi, pronounced on on21.04.2025.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have

heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. I find no

merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner petitioner.

4. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows: -

"17. Amendment of pleadings. -TheThe Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms aas 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."

5. A bare reading of the above provision shows that no doubt,

amendment is to be permitted in justiciable terms for the determination of

the real controversy at hand. However, the said provision cannot be read

in isolation of the proviso thereto, which further categorically stipulates

2 of 6

CR-8601-2025 2025 (O&M) -3-

"...no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is

commenced ed......"

6. The undisputed facts of the present case in chronological

sequence are that the present Civil Suit was filed on dated 20.08.2018;;

issues were framed by the th learned trial Court on 12.

12.02.2019; whereafter

trial had commenced. Admittedly, when the present application dated

17.04.2025 .2025 (Annexure P-2) P for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

was filed,, evidence of the parties stands closed, and matter is at stage of

final arguments.

arguments As per the above provision, amendment cannot be

permitted once trial has has commenced. As such, present revision petition

deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself.

7. The proviso further stipulates that "......

"......unless unless the Court

comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not

have raised the matter m before the commencement of trial." Thus, prior to

permitting amendment, it is incumbent upon this Court to conclude that

despite exercise of due diligence, the party seeking the amendment could

not have pleaded the facts now sought to be incorporated. It has been

averred in the instant application that amendment is necessitated as during

the pendency of the suit, the defendant has 'constructed projection

(Chajja) and staircase. In fact, the said projection and staircase were

constructed by the defendant over the dispute disputed Rasta illegally after the

filing of the present suit and passing of the order dated 21.08.2018. As

such, the defendant has constructed the said projection and staircase over

the disputed Rasta after filing of the present su suit.'' Accordingly, relief of

possession is sought to be added to the present suit.




                                3 of 6

 CR-8601-2025
        2025 (O&M)                       -4-

8. However, the above averments are utmostly mostly vague and

general. It is not specified as to when the defendant allegedly started

raising construction; or when the petitioner ddiscovered iscovered the same; or how

the petitioner discovered the same. It is therefore crystal clear that the

petitioner has execrably failed to exercise due diligence as required under

law. Needless to say, the reasons cited by the petitioner in the amendment

application lication constitute no ground for permitting amendment. As per

established tenets of law, law sheer carelessness as in the present case,

constitute no ground for permitting amendment.

9. Moreover, needless to say that the relief of possession now

sought to be incorporated by the petitioner would change the entire nature

of the suit. By way of amendment, the petitioner also cannot be permitted

to fill the lacunae in his case. Therefore, it would be grossly prejudicial

and inequitable to the respondent ondent if amendment is permitted at this

belated stage.

10. This Court is well aware of the precedent case law holding

that in applications of such nature a liberal view ought to be taken.

However, keeping in view the entirety of the above noted facts an and d

circumstances of the case, this Court is not convinced to grant the prayer

of the petitioner. I am supported in my view by a judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale vvs. Monika Pandit Mahale,

(SC):: Law Finder Doc Id # 1691426 wherein it is held as under: -

"Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 - Amendment of Plaint - Amendment application filed after evidence begun

- In absence of any finding that Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, party could not introduce amendment before

4 of 6

CR-8601-2025 2025 (O&M) -5-

commencement of trial - Therefore, amendment of plaint unsustainable and set aside."

11. This Court in Rati Ram v. Inder (P&H) : Law Finder Doc

Id #244372 has held as under:-

"Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - Amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of right-Amendment Amendment was not at all necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties - The application was not bona fide as such, it was only filed to delay the proceeding further when the suit remained pending for seven years -Amendment Amendment right decline."

12. Again in K.B. Sharma vs. s. Shri Keerti Karan Dharni

(P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 205192,, this Court has held that: -

"A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso - Amendment of written statement - After the commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, until and unless, the party seeking amendment establishes that despite due diligence, it could not raise the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment - Where defendant was already in knowledge of such pleas at the time of filing the original written statement - Amendment cannot be allowed.

allowed."

13. Vide impugned order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P P-4), the he

learned trial Court while dismissing the application of the petitioner in

para 8 thereof has held as under:-

"8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the present is a suit instituted for the relief of permanent injunction. Further, the applicant initially prayed in alternative ernative that "if the defendant succeeds in raising construction or making any encroachment during the pendency of the present suit, in such circumstances a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the said rasta and also to remove the said encroachment or constructions made by him over the portion of said rasta, may kingly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with cocosts of the suit". However, the application by way of proposed amendment is seeking relief regarding the controversy which might have arisen before the institution of the present suit. The applicant had kept mum since last seven years. He failed

5 of 6

CR-8601-2025 2025 (O&M) -6-

to satisfy thiss Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. This Court is of the view that though rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice, the object of the same is to advance the cause of justice. A careful reading of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC makes it clear that the same is couched in mandatory form and put an embargo on the jurisdiction of the Court that before exercising the power conferred under said rule, the Court must come to a conclu conclusion sion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

14. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner in Jeet Ram's case (supra) is distinguishable on fact facts of law.

15. In view of the above noted, factual and legal position position, I find

no ground is made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

16. Dismissed.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.




26.11.2025                                           ( NIDHI GUPTA )
rishu                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

             Whether Reportable                Yes/No




                                6 of 6