Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 398

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Bikramjit Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Varun Kumar And Another - Respondent
CR-5726-2025(O&M) and CR-5733-2025(O&M)
Decided On : 29-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate

Amendments to pleadings post-commencement of trial under Civil Procedure Code are restricted unless due diligence is demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 - Applications for amendment of written statement and stay of proceedings - The trial Court dismissed the amendment application based on the conduct of the defendants, noting their attempts to delay the proceedings - Proper form and due diligence in filing pleadings are emphasized. (Paras 16-18)

(B) The High Court reinforces that its power of superintendence must be exercised judiciously; interference is limited to cases of jurisdictional errors. (Paras 19-20)

Facts of the case:
The revision petitions challenge the orders of the Civil Judge dismissing applications to amend written statements regarding separate suits for specific performance of agreements initiated in 2018. The petitioner contested the legitimacy of the original agreements, alleging attempts at delay in court processes.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting the absence of due diligence for the amendment application, asserting that the impugned orders do not warrant intervention.

Issues: The main issue addressed was the permissibility of amending pleadings post the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that amendments sought after trial commencement require clear establishing of due diligence to be permissible. Since this was absent, the trial court's dismissal was justified.

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. proceedings for amendment are initiated. (Para 1 , 2)
2. history of proceedings shows delays. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments concerning amendment of pleadings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. restrictions on amendments after trial commencement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. judicial review must respect lower courts' judgments. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

CM-19787-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the zimni orders as Annexure P-12.

2. Application is allowed. Annexure P-12 is taken on record.

CM-19788-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for the revival of the revision petition which was disposed of.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 25.08.2025 is recalled and the main revision petition is ordered to be restored to its original number.

MAIN CASE(S)

1. The present order would dispose of two revision petitions. The first revision petition i.e., CR-5726-2025 has been filed by Bikramjit Singh against Varun Kumar and another and in the said revision petition challenge has been made to order dated 25.07.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Gurdaspur, in Civil Suit no.CS-867 of 2018 (Annexure P-1) instituted on 11.07.2018 vide which the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant has been dismissed. The second revision petition i.e., CR-5733-2025 has been filed by Bikramjit Singh (defendant no.1) against Varun Kumar, Manika and another in which challenge is to the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Gurdaspur, in Civil Suit no.CS-868 of 2018 (Annexure P-1) instituted on 11.07.2018 vide which the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that in both the suits, the defendants are Bikramjit Singh and Baljit Singh and the present petitioner is defendant no.1. It is submitted that plaintiff no.1 in both the suits is Varun Kumar and in the suit which is subject matter of CR-5733-2025 i.e., plaintiff no.2 is Manika. It is submitted that both the suits have been instituted on the same date and are being heard on the same date and both the suits are for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. It is submitted that in CR-5726-2025, the agreement to sell regarding which the suit has been filed is dated 01.12.2014 and is with respect to 8 kanals of land, whereas in the suit which is subject matter of CR-5733-2025 the agreement to sell of which specific performance is sought is dated 18.10.2016 and the land involved is 18 kanal 9 marlas. It is fairly submitted that the facts for the purpose of present revision petitions can be considered from CR-5726-2025. Accordingly, the facts are being taken from CR-5726-2025.

3. It has not been disputed before this Court that two suits were filed for specific performance of two agreements by respondent no.1-plaintiff Varun Kumar and the same had been filed in the year 2018. The zimni orders have been annexed as Anenxure P-12 by the petitioner. A perusal of the same would show that every endeavour has been made by defendants no.1 and 2 to delay the proceedings in the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance. On 06.08.2018, both the defendants had been served and they had appeared through their counsel Sh. Raman Kumar, which fact is apparent from the zimni order dated 06.08.2018 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'Present Shri Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.

Shri Raman Kumar, Advocate, has filed power-of-attorney on behalf of defendants no. 1 & 2. Service is complete. Now to come upon 19.09.2018 for filing written statement.

Date of Order: 06.08.2018

Gurpreet Kaur,

CJJD/GSP

Next Date: 19.09.2018 UID No. PB0471

Purpose:________ Note: Dictated directly on