IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 SANTRA DEVI .... Petitioner VERSUS SHAKUNTALA DEVI .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein for leading secondary evidence was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that initially the respondent filed a suit for recovery of ₹1,03,92,000. Written statement was filed to the said plaint. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent for amending the plaint. The amendment sought was for addition of paras No.4(a), 5(a) and 10(a). Primarily the addition sought was for amending the recoverable amount from ₹1,03,92,000 to ₹1,91,15,318. Reply was filed to the said application.

3. At this point it needs to be noticed that earlier, before filing of the application for amendment of the plaint by the respondent, an application was filed by the petitioner herein for production of the original agreement dated 01.09.2009. Reply was filed to the said application. The said application was dismissed by a detailed speaking order dated 31.01.2024 wherein it was held that there was no recital of any agreement to sell dated 01.09.2009 in the sale deed dated 04.11.2009 (Ex.P3). Even the agreement dated 01.09.2009 did not find any mention in the original written statement. Post the amendment being allowed vide order dated 28.08.2023, the amended plaint (Annexure P- 5) was filed adding paras No.4(a), 5(a) and 10(a). Interestingly in the amended written statement filed by the petitioner, besides filing her response to the newly added paras No.4(a), 5(a) and 10(a), in the preliminary objections a totally new plea was raised in paras no.7 and 8 regarding an agreement dated 01.09.2009. It is to be noted that both the parties have concluded their evidence. The petitioner herein thereafter filed an application for leading secondary evidence for producing the agreement dated 01.09.2009. A perusal of the application reveals that in the application it has simply been stated that the original agreement is in possession of the respondent and she has intentionally not produced the same. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 the application was dismissed.

Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the secondary evidence ought to have been allowed as earlier an application had been filed by the petitioner for production of the documents which are in possession of the respondent which application was dismissed on the ground that the alleged agreement dated 01.09.2009 was not mentioned in the sale deed dated 04.11.2009 which was already on the record as Ex.P3. Learned counsel would further contend that the secondary evidence was necessitated after the respondent filed the amended plaint and the petitioner filed the amended written statement. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that besides responding to the amended paragraphs, the petitioner was at liberty to amend and to raise any new plea in the written statement which she had done by adding paras No.7 and 8 and once the new plea was added, she should have been permitted to lead the secondary evidence. It is still further the contention of the learned counsel that there is no statutory bar to amend the entire written statement while filing an amended one. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in M/s Lal Chand Balwant Rai & Ors. V/s M/s Harnarain Dass Gharsi Ram & Anr. [1983 PLR 444] and Sheo Ram V/s Madhu Ram &

Ors. [2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 646].

5.