Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL, J
Kulwant Singh Saini - Appellant
Versus
Jaspreet Singh And Others - Respondent
CR-640-2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-09-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Mr. V.S. Mahal, Ms. Suverna Mutneja
For the Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav Narang
The court emphasized a liberal approach to granting amendments, particularly considering the petitioner's advanced age, allowing justice to prevail despite procedural delays.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Application dismissed at the stage of trial due to lack of due diligence - Court must consider the age and capacity of the petitioner in evaluating due diligence - Amendment allowed in the interest of justice and to ensure proper adjudication. (Paras 7, 20)
(B) Principles governing amendments - Courts must adopt a liberal approach to ensure that the real controversies between parties are adjudicated effectively. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include two critical documents discovered post-filing, asserting their necessity for just adjudication but was initially denied on grounds of lack of diligence.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted the petitioner’s age and explained that while he had not exercised due diligence, the documents were crucial for the case’s resolution, and thus the amendment should be allowed with costs.
Issues: Whether the delay in seeking amendment due to advanced age constituted sufficient grounds for allowing the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the age and circumstances of the petitioner were valid considerations for a liberal approach towards amendments, especially when they upheld the cause of justice.
Result: The amendment application was allowed with a cost imposed.
JUDGMENT :
Parmod Goyal, J.
The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
2. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration, claiming ownership and possession of the suit property as detailed in the plaint.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, while making efforts to locate and collect relevant documents, he came across two material documents, namely:
(1) An agreement dated 19.01.1982 executed by M/s Saini & Co. Rice Mills through its partner Sh. Mandeep Saini (defendant), whereby an area measuring 4 Kanal 10 Marlas was taken on lease at a monthly rent of ?1,500/- for a period of 20 years; and
(2) A registered lease deed dated 23.02.1988 executed by the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of defendant No. 1, Jaspreet Singh, pertaining to land measuring 2 Kanal 10 Marlas, for a consideration of ?5,000/- for a term of 5 years.
4. It is submitted that the existence of the aforementioned documents was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of filing the suit, and therefore could not be included in the original pleadings. The plaintiff-petitioner asserted that reference to these documents is essential for the just adjudication of the matter, and that their inclusion would assist the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. Accordingly, an application for amendment of the plaint was preferred so as to incorporate necessary pleadings in relation to the said documents.
5. The defendants filed their respective replies to the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, denying the averments made therein and prayed for its dismissal.
6. The learned Trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, observed that although pleadings can be amended at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment may be necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It, however, held that when an application is filed after the commencement of trial, it is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that despite exercising due diligence, the amendment could not have been sought earlier.
7. The learned Court of first instance, concluded that the plaintiff- petitioner had failed to establish that the proposed amendment could not have been sought earlier despite due diligence. Accordingly, the application for amendment was dismissed on the ground of lack of due diligence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Court of first instance has erred in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint by failing to take into account the petitioner's-plaintiff's advance age. It was submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner is approximately 88 years old and, owing to his old age, has become slow in comprehension and memory. As such, it was entirely plausible and natural for the petitioner to have forgotten the existence of certain old documents executed as far back as in the year 1988.
9. It was further submitted that the documents now sought to be incorporated into the pleadings through amendment are vital and essential for the just and proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. Hence, the amendment should have been allowed in the interest of justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(1) Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615.
(2) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRS, 2008 (8) Supreme Court Cases 511.
10. Learned counsel for th
