##PAGE1##

CR-9438-2025 (O&M) -1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-9438-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-22.12.2025

Surinder Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Lalit Saroch ....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 01.11.2025

passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya, whereby

the application filed by the respondent–landlord under Order VI Rule 17 read with

Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition and site plan has been allowed.

2. The petitioner assails the impugned order primarily on the ground that

the amendment permitted by the Trial Court amounts to a substantive change in the

pleadings, withdraws earlier admissions, and materially prejudices the defence of

the tenant. Reliance has been placed upon various judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, including Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409, Modi

Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Ladha Ram (1977) 1 SCC 728, Revajeetu Builders

& Developers v. Narayanaswamy (2009) 10 SCC 84 and allied precedents, to

contend that amendments which alter the nature of the case or defeat accrued rights

ought not to be permitted.

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-9438-2025 (O&M) -2

3. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision petition,

no notice is required to be issued.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of counsel for petitioner

and has carefully perused the record.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court

has recorded a clear finding that the amendment sought is confined to correction of

the description of boundaries in the headnote, prayer clause and site plan, which

had crept in due to an inadvertent and typographical error. The Trial Court has

further found that the identity of the demised premises remains unchanged and that

the amendment neither introduces a new cause of action nor alters the basic

structure of the ejectment petition.

6. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not in dispute as

propositions of law, however, their application to the facts of the present case is

clearly misplaced. In Vidyabai’s case (supra), the amendment was sought after

commencement of trial without due diligence and resulted in introduction of a new

factual foundation. In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills case (supra), the proposed

amendment sought to withdraw categorical admissions already made. Similarly, in

Revajeetu Builders & Developers case (supra), the amendment fundamentally

altered the nature of the claim and caused serious prejudice to the opposite party.

The factual matrix in the present case is entirely different. Here, the amendment

neither withdraws any admission forming the foundation of the case nor introduces

an inconsistent or mutually destructive plea.

7. On the contrary, the correction permitted by the Trial Court is

clarificatory in nature, intended to bring the pleadings and the site plan in

consonance with each other. The Trial Court has also rightly observed that the

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-9438-2025 (O&M) -3

amendment was sought at an early stage of the proceedings and that any possible

inconvenience to the petitioner can be adequately taken care of during trial. No

irreversible prejudice or failure of justice has been demonstrated.

8. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of patent

illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. The impugned order does not suffer

from any such infirmity. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously,

keeping in view the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings, and this

Court finds no ground to substitute its own view m