302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 SUKHWANT SINGH .... Petitioner VERSUS GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ANR .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Puri, Advocate for the respondents.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 29.06.2021 the petitioner herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents herein from raising the level of the street 18 feet in width wrongly and illegally and above the street already constructed and sewerage already laid in the said street. On 14.09.2021 written statement was filed by respondent No.1 herein taking a stand that maximum work had already been done except for the work in front of the house of the petitioner and his neighbour. Issues were framed on 22.10.2021. On 25.11.2021 the present application was filed. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 the application was dismissed on the ground that the amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of the trial and that it would amount to change in the nature of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the necessity to file the present application arose because in the written statement a stand was taken that maximum work had been concluded therefore the requirement to add the relief of mandatory injunction. Learned counsel has further contended that the present amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the amendment would not result in the respondents losing a valid defence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. [2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 851], Amarjit Singh V/s Sarabjit Kaur & Anr. [2015(9) RCR (Civil) 453] and Amarjit Singh Dhaliwal & Anr. V/s M/s Dev Raj and Sons & Ors. [2013 SCC OnLine P&H 18706 = Doc Id #2073215]

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that since maximum work had already been concluded hence the suit itself was rendered infructuous and that the petitioner would need to file a fresh suit. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the present amendment would amount to changing the nature of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Vidyabai & Ors.

V/s Padmalatha & Anr. [2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 763] and Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. LRs V/s M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 824] to contend that the Courts have no jurisdiction to allow amendment of the proceedings after commencement of the trial. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers V/s Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. [2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 27] to contend that the amendment is mala fide and is made for delaying the trial and that the construction is raised with permission.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the original suit was for permanent injunction, however, written statement was filed by the respondents stating therein that maximum work had already been carried out. Issues were framed. Before the commencement of the evidence, the present application was filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) has held as under :

“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus :

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendmen