[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspaul Singh Alias Jaspal Singh And ... vs Gurjit Kaur And Others on 22 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
CR-9916-2025(O&M) -1-
149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-9916-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
JASPAUL SINGH @ JASPAL SINGH & ANR. ..Petitioners
Versus
GURJIT KAUR AND ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is filed for setting aside order dated
10.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Karnal.
2. Learner counsel for the petitioners contends that civil suit
challenging sale deed dated 11.12.2001 was filed in the year 2017 and in the
written statement filed in the year 2017 itself, the petitioners specifically
stated regarding another sale deed dated 07.09.2001 pertaining to the same
property still in the year 2025 respondents moved an application under Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') without
showing any reason in the application as to why the amendment was not
filed in the year 2017 itself when it was specifically averred in the written
statement filed by the petitioners.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CR-9916-2025(O&M) -2-
3. He further contends that in the application filed by the
respondents for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, there is not
even a single line regarding due diligence on the part of respondents to show
the reason because of which the sale deed dated 07.09.2001 could not be
challenged and also that after filing of the written statement filed by the
petitioners in the year 2017 itself the application under Order VI Rule 17
could be moved.
4. He further contends that at the fag end of the civil, the
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is filed by the respondents which
is not permissible as per law. And learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Karnal did not take into consideration the requirement under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He, therefore, prays that the present revision
petition be allowed.
5. In support of his contention, he relies upon the following
judgments:-
"1. Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others, 2024(4) RCR (Civil) 115
2. M/s RMS Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lakhmi, CR-4184-2019,
decided on 02.06.2023"
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondents contends that learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal has rightly allowed the
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the respondents by
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this particular case.
He, therefore, prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CR-9916-2025(O&M) -3-
8. A perusal of the file shows that civil suit seeking permanent
injunction is filed by the respondents. Respondents moved an application
under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint by stating that
in the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 29 kanal and 13 marlas,
whereas, certain shares of the parties have been left inadvertently for which
the amendment of the plaint is necessary.
9. A perusal of file further shows that the suit for possession of the
property was filed on the ground that Mangal Singh on the basis of forged
Will got mutation sanctioned leading to get the sale deed dated 11.12.2001
registered. The suit was decreed and sale deed was set aside, therefore,
defendants No.3 and 4 in the civil suit on the basis of that illegal sale deed
came into possession of the property, which the respondents claimed through
the suit.
10. Further the property which was part of earlier Will and the sale
deed dated 07.09.2001 was also consequent to that Will regarding the same
property. Even the evidence and averments are same which would not
change the nature of the suit.
11. A perusal of file further shows that no prejudice has been caused
to the petitioners if the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by
the respondents is allowed rather a perusal of file shows that to deliver
complete justice to the parties learned trial Court has rightly allowed the
application filed by the respondents.
12. Now coming to the judgments referred to by learned counsel for
the petitioners.
13. The facts of the present case are totally different from the facts
of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CR-9916-2025(O&M) -4-
14. Further there is no bar on allowing the application under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC, which as per Hon'ble Supreme Court can be allowed
even at the appellate stage as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in
order dated 10.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Karnal which is well reasoned. Therefore, the same is hereby
upheld. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
16. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 22nd, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Sahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
