IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar (since deceased) through her LRs … Petitioners Versus Nirmal Bhardwaj and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Parv Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondents.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the application instituted by the petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was instituted by one Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar against the respondents/defendants (Nirmal Bhardwaj and others). By way of the suit, various gift deeds and transfer deeds etc. had been challenged. It was claimed by Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar that she was in possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, she expired and the legal representatives were brought on record. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), while holding that the plaintiffs/petitioners were not in possession of the suit property.

3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal (Annexure P-2) was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved by the petitioners/appellants. It was claimed that during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs had been dispossessed from the suit property and, therefore, paragraph 5B was sought to be introduced in this regard. The prayer clause was also sought to be amended to claim the relief of possession.

4. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4). It was averred that the application was misconceived and was an abuse of process of the Court. It was averred that the respondent (Nirmal Bhardwaj) was an 80 years old widow and was suffering from age-related ailments and was desirous of seeing the outcome of the litigation in her lifetime. It was averred that all averments made in the application were false and that the same deserved to be dismissed with costs.

5. Vide 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. Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously urged that the first appellate Court erred in dismissing the application. It has been submitted that it would not amount to any new cause of action and the legal representatives had duly stepped into the shoes of Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar. It has been argued that the legal representatives were pursuing the suit on behalf of Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar and, therefore, the findings are erroneous. It has also been argued that the first appellate Court erroneously held that the benefit of amendment would go to the legal representatives of Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar, which is also wrong. In so far as possession is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs were duly dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, it was necessary to introduce the said fact. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavva and another v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) by Legal Heirs and others, 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 347; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRs., 2008(8) SCC 511; and Life Insurance Corporation of India v.

Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, 2022(16) SCC 1.

7.1 On a