IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(139)

Date of Decision:-13.01.2026

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. AND OTHERS

… Petitioners

Versus

DAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

... Respondents

****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:- Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate

for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present petition, invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invites the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for examining the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional soundness of the order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. By the said order, the learned Trial Court has allowed the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint by taking recourse to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for

short, ‘CPC’).

2. Succinctly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, seeking a pronouncement that the report of the Internal Committee is illegal, null and void, having been rendered in breach of the principles of natural justice. A further prayer for permanent injunction was sought to restrain the petitioners/defendants from effecting termination of

the respondent’s services on the strength of the said report during the pendency of the suit.

3. The petitioners filed a written statement contesting the suit and apprised the Court that the services of the respondent/plaintiff had already been terminated on 20.12.2021. It is the petitioners’ assertion that the respondent/plaintiff was duly aware of the said termination; notwithstanding this, he chose to proceed with the suit as originally framed and subsequently moved an application for amendment of the plaint on 11.06.2024, purportedly with the sole intent of delaying the proceedings. Although the application was opposed by the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to allow the same.

4. Aggrieved by the order so rendered, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and have undertaken a meticulous examination of the pleadings, documents, and the entire material placed on the record, with a view to appreciating the contours of the controversy in its proper legal perspective.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the general principles governing amendment of pleadings do not permit alterations that would materially change or substitute the cause of action or the nature of the claim. It is urged that the mandate of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, particularly the proviso thereto, has been overlooked inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff was admittedly aware of the fact of his termination well in advance and could have sought amendment of the plaint at the appropriate stage. Despite such knowledge, no steps were taken by him for a considerable period, and the belated application, therefore, ought not to have been entertained. It is submitted that the impugned order is thus contrary to the spirit and intent of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and Another, AIR 2009 SC 1433, and J. Samuel and Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that, in view of the judgments relied upon by him, no application for amendment can be entertained once the trial has commenced. It is contended that the present case does not satisfy the statutory requirement of “due diligence” embodied in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as the respondent/plaintiff was duly informed of the termination of his services in the written statement itself. Despite such knowledge, he failed to raise the plea at the appropriate stage, and therefore, the belated amendment cannot be justified under the prete