244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6201-2015 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 NARINDER PAL SINGH SAINI ..Petitioner Versus AJAY SHARMA AND ANR ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanchit Khurana, Advocate for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition is filed for quashing order dated 15.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as follows:-

(i) That the petitioner had filed civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating, transferring or assailing by way of general power of attorney and from interfering in the peaceful occupation of demised premises.

No.1 refused the agreement to sell dated 05.02.1996. Therefore, he filed application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the amendment sought was for suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.02.1996. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed and order dated 15.07.2015 be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that no new cause has arisen for amendment of the plaint since at the time of filing of the suit also the petitioner was aware about the response of the respondent, since in Para 9 of the original civil suit it is specifically stated that the respondent cannot sell the same property for the second time because he has already executed the necessary documents in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the present civil revision petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating, transferring or assailing by way of general power of attorney and from interfering in the peaceful occupation of demised premises. And in Para 9 it has been specifically stated that respondent has already executed the necessary documents in favour of the petitioner, therefore, at the time of filing the civil suit, the petitioner was in possession of agreement to sell dated 05.02.1996 and at that point of time he never filed suit for specific performance. Further, the reasoning given by the petitioner to the effect that execution of the agreement to sell or any document in favour of the petitioner under Order VI rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint is unbelievable since in Para 9 of the original civil suit he has already stated so.

And the amendment sought would altogether change the nature of the suit.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is well-reasoned and speaking, therefore, no ground is made out to interfere in the same. Therefore, order dated 15.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Division), Chandigarh is hereby upheld.

7. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is dismissed

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

February 11^th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE Ayub/Saahil