(121) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.02.2026 GIAN SAGAR EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST ...Petitioner Vs.

GURMEET SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, whereby the applications filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were allowed by a common order; the petitioner contends that the said order is erroneous both on facts and in law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.01.2017, executed by the petitioner/defendants in respect of the suit land. While Defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte, Defendant No.1 actively contested the suit by filing a written statement. When the matter was posted for the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff initially moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Order I Rule 10 CPC, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, two separate applications were filed; one seeking amendment of the plaint and the other for impleading an additional defendant, namely Defendant No.3. Both applications were strenuously opposed by the petitioner/Defendant No.1. Nevertheless, the learned Civil Judge, by the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, allowed both applications, holding that the amendments and impleadment were permissible. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed seeking its setting aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in an illegal and arbitrary manner. He argued that the learned Civil Judge allowed the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of an additional party despite the fact that the proposed amendment related to a cause of action which was clearly time-barred. The impugned sale deed, being the subject of the amendment, dates back to the year 2017, whereas the application for amendment and impleadment was filed only in 2024, after a lapse of approximately seven years. He pointed out that, as per law, the limitation to challenge a sale deed is three years, and therefore the proposed amendment could not have been permitted.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that allowing the amendment has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as it effectively permits the respondent/plaintiff to introduce a fresh cause of action that is barred by limitation, thereby defeating the petitioner’s legal rights. He emphasized that the learned Civil Judge appears to have ignored the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, which is intended to prevent the introduction of claims that are barred by limitation through amendments. By permitting the amendment, the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed to introduce a stale cause of action, contrary to the statutory provisions.

5. It was further contended that the impugned sale deed has already been challenged by the petitioner through a separate suit, and permitting the amendment in the present case creates multiplicity of proceedings and causes additional prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore urged that the impugned order allowing the amendment and impleadment be set aside as being arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of both the principles of limitation and natural justice.

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order and paper-book carefully.

7. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Civil Judge allowed the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of the additional defendant