IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.05.2025 RAJIV KUMAR .... Petitioner VERSUS ASHOK GUPTA AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ganaur whereby the application filed, at the initial stage, by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the pleadings was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction and for consequential relief of permanent injunction with mesne profits. In the plaint it is claimed that the plaintiff-petitioner is exclusive owner and in possession of the properties having Nos.422-A, 422-B and 422-C situated at Railway Road, Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat within M.C. Limit of Ganaur vide release deed No.3962 dated 26.02.2018. Copy of the said release deed was also appended AMAN JAIN

2025.05.08 09:37 with the plaint. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed. Written statement along with reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same an appeal being CMA-90-2019 was preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner in which he made a statement that he was not seeking possession. The said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 27.09.2019. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a revision petition being CR-4232-2022 before this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2022 passed by this Court.

3. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was filed before framing of the issues. The plaintiff- petitioner wants to amend para No.15 i.e the prayer clause of the plaint and to substitute the words “and to handover actual possession to the plaintiff” with the words “and be directed to hand over actual encroached area with metes and bounds to the plaintiff”. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order the amendment application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the case is still at the initial stage and hence the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the pleadings, to the extent as stated above, ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 would contend that before the Trial Court, in the application under Order AMAN JAIN

2025.05.08 09:37

39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a specific statement was made by the plaintiff- petitioner himself that it is not a suit for possession and that he is not claiming possession of the suit property. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the true owner of the property has not been impleaded as a party and that an FIR has been lodged against the plaintiff-petitioner qua this very property by the original owner. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that a civil suit is also filed by the original owner and hence the present application ought to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts and being malafide.

6. Heard.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. [2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 851] has held as under :

“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application