IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.02.2026 Gurmukh Singh and another …Petitioners V/s Paramjit Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Ruchi Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5 and 7.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the application moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for the amendment of plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper-book, are that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted a suit (Annexure P-1) for permanent injunction;

“SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, their behalf, from Makhtiars etc, gusting the plaintiffs from joins possession of the suit property, mentioned on aų letter-X below and from dispossessing the plaintiffs fidhi manner, illegally, sult Land, in any forcibly, without getting the same partitioned and further restraining the defendants from cause to interfere from using the electric motor connection No. AP 13-0419 by plaintiffs running in the suit land.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT LAND X):-

Land, comprising in Khewat No.86/77, Khatoni No.141, Khasra No.26//2/1(6-0), 8/2(6-0),9 (8-0), 13/1 (6-0),28//16/1(0-16),25/2(0- 16),29//10/2min(0-11), 1lmin (4-11), 12/1(2-5), 12/2(4-11),13(8-0),18/1 (2- 17), 19(7-19), 20(8-0), 21(8-0),22/1(4-13),32//1(8-0), 33// 5/2(0-16),95(0- 18), 189 (0-3) total 88K-16M Khatoni No.142, Khasra No.26//6/2/1(2- 4),15/2(3-8), 29//11min (2-17), 20/2min (0-11) Total 9K-OM situated at village Dubhali, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, as per copy of Jamabandi for the years 2012-2013 -.”

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by way of a written statement (Annexure P-2).

4. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues, evidence was led and concluded by both sides whereafter, an application (Annexure P-6) was moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. By way of the said application, the petitioners-

plaintiffs wanted to make the following amendments:-

“2- That the plaintiffs want to amend their plaint by adding word: letter Y after the word land, in seventh line of head note and similarly in the prayer clause. The plaintiffs also want to add the letter "Y" in the first line, after figure 16M at page No. 3 of the plaint.

3- That the plaintiffs also wants to add the word" X' and exclusive possession of land mentioned at letter "y" after word property in first line of page 4 of the plaint.)”

5. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-7). By way of the impugned order, the said application was dismissed leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought to be made is formal in nature and will not change the nature of the suit. He further submits that the petitioners-plaintiffs do not wish to lead any further evidence after the amendment is allowed and that the amendment is essential for the just decision of the case.

8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that the amendment, if permitted to be made, will change the nature of the claim of the petitioners-

plaintiffs.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. Concededly, evidence of the parties stands concluded and the matter was pending at the stage of rebuttal evidence when the application for the amendment was moved. In terms of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no such amendment could have been made after the trial had