IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-471-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.01.2026 VARINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER ....PETITIONERS VERSUS BALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Mandhir Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sardulgarh, vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint has been allowed.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she along with defendants No.1 and 2 is a co-sharer in the suit land described in the headnote of the plaint. Defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with defendants No.3 and 4, who are the officials of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, are threatening to shift the tubewell connection existing in the suit land to some other land to establish their right over a specific portion. By way of present suit, a decree for permanent injunction was sought restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from getting the tubewell connection shifted in the said land.

3. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement have admitted that the parties are co-sharers as plaintiff and defendant No.1 inherited the land from their father-in-law, namely, Natha Singh by way of a Will. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit only to harass them as she has already obtained electricity connection for tubewell in her name and defendant No.1 also has a right to obtain a tubewell connection in the land in her possession. Dismissal of the suit was sought.

4. During pendency of the suit, the application for amendment of the plaint was moved with the averments that during pendency of the suit, defendants have forcibly and illegally shifted the tubewell connection in land bearing Khasra No.34//25/2 and prayer has been made to amend the plaint and to seek a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 and remaining defendants to remove the connection from land comprising Khasra No.34//25/2 and restore it to the earlier situation.

5. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed reply to the application and opposed the same alleging that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and defendant No.1 never got shifted the tubewell connection to any other place and the nature of suit will change in case the amendment sought is allowed.

6. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court allowed the application and feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been instituted.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the material on file, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

8. The plaintiff had initially instituted the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from shifting tubewell connection from the suit land forcibly and illegally without getting the suit land partitioned. It has been alleged that during pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 has got shifted the tubewell connection in land bearing Khasra No.34//25/2 and she has made a prayer for converting the suit into a suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to restore the tubewell connection at its original place. As such, by way of proposed amendment, nature of suit is not going to change. Rather, the amendment sought has got necessitated due to subsequent events and in case, amendment application is allowed, it will help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation. Learned Trial Court has also appreciated the facts of the case in the correct perspective while allowing the application which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. As such, no interference in the impugned order is called for and revision petition is ordered to