Jagdish Chander (Deceased) Through His ... vs Surinder Pal And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1115 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish Chander (Deceased) Through His ... vs Surinder Pal And Ors on 6 February, 2026

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                       227
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                                                        CR-5516-2024 (O&M)
                                                                        Date of Decision : 06.02.2026


                       Jagdish Chander (deceased) through his LR                             ... Petitioner

                                                              Versus

                       Surinder Pal                                                        ... Respondent


                       CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                       Present :      Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                      Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with
                                      Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.


                       ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present revision petition is limited to the extent that

three applications being an application for amendment of the plaint; secondly

for leading additional evidence; and thirdly for framing of the additional

issues, may be decided before hearing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that three

separate applications were filed; one for framing of additional issues

(Annexure P-5); secondly, for leading additional evidence (Annexure P-4);

and thirdly for amendment of the plaint (Annexure P-3). It is further the

contention that the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 had

directed that all the applications be disposed off alongwith the main appeal or

before the arguments on the main appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner

would further contend that atleast the applications for amendment of the plaint

and for framing of additional issues ought to have been decided either way.

3. Per contra learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents would contend that the order dated 04.09.2024 is totally valid and

legal and it is a settled proposition of law that application for additional

evidence should be heard with the main appeal. The application for

amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein is nothing but

for supporting material for such additional evidence. It is further the

contention that the order is totally innocuous and does not determine the rights

of the parties. Learned senior counsel would further contend that that the

applications have been filed only to cause delay as the appeal was preferred

in the year 2018 and the applications have been filed in the year 2023 that too

when the case was fixed for arguments. In support of his contention, he has

relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan vs. T. Sahani [2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 419].

4. Heard.

5. In the present case vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 the

First Appellate Court has adjourned the appeal for arguments on the main

appeal and on the aforesaid three applications. Two of the applications i.e. one

under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and other for

framing of additional issues ought to have been decided by the First Appellate

Court either way before final hearing of the appeal inasmuch as in case

application for amendment of the plaint is allowed, the defendant-respondents

would have to be given an opportunity to file their amended written statement

and further if application for framing of additional issues is allowed by the

First Appellate Court, the same may also entail ancillary proceedings.

6. So far as third application for leading additional evidence is

concerned, the same is no doubt to be considered at the time of hearing the

appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought

to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved, in view of

the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malayalam

Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 609].

7. There is no dispute regarding the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. T. Sahani (supra) relied

upon by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In that

case the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment of

the grounds of appeal before the High Court alongwith application under

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence and both the applications

were dismissed. However, in the present case, the application under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC has been filed for amendment of plaint before the First Appellate

Court besides the above two applications. The First Appellate Court vide the

impugned order has still not decided the said applications and merely

adjourned the case for arguments on the appeal as well as on the above three

applications.

8. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed off

with a request to the First Appellate Court to decide two of the applications -

one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and other for

framing of additional issues - before hearing the appeal on merits and the third

application for leading additional evidence can be decided at the time of final

hearing of the appeal on merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed off.

                         06.02.2026                                        ( ALKA SARIN )
                         jk                                                    JUDGE
                                       NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
                                             Whether reportable: YES/NO