IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Baljinder Singh . . . . Pe’’oner Vs.

Baljit Singh . . . . Respondent ****

Reserved on: 18.02.2026 Pronounced on: 23.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera’ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aayush Arora, Advocate for the pe!!oner.

Mr. Gaurav Du$a, Advocate and Ms. Srish! S. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/caveator.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The pe!!oner before this Court is the plain!ff in Civil Suit No.256 of 2021 !tled “Baljinder Singh vs. Baljeet Singh”. By way of the present pe!!on filed under Ar!cle 227 of the Cons!tu!on of India, the pe!!oner has assailed two orders passed by the learned trial Court — order dated 31.10.2025 (Annex- ure P-1), whereby the defendant-respondent was permi$ed to amend the writ- ten statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; and order dated 09.01.2026 (Annex- ure P-2), whereby the defendant was allowed to file and pursue a counter-claim. 2. Admi$edly, the plain!ff, being owner of land measuring 33 Kanal 5 Marla, entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.09.2020 in favour of the defendant with respect to land measuring 16 Kanal 12.5 Marla at the rate of ₹17,30,000 per acre. A sum of ₹8,00,000 was paid as earnest money. The target date for execu!on and registra!on of the sale deed was fixed as 16.05.2021. As per the agreement, the defendant was required to pay an amount of ₹13,00,000 on or before 05.05.2021, whereas the plain!ff was required to redeem the land prior to the target date.

3. According to the plain!ff, he remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract upon receipt of the balance considera!on. Since 16.05.2021 fell on a Sunday, the plain!ff appeared before the office of the Sub- Registrar on 17.05.2021 a@er informing the defendant; however, the defendant did not turn up. The plain!ff therea@er issued a legal no!ce dated 25.05.2021 calling upon the defendant to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 10.06.2021 for execu!on of the sale deed. The defendant again failed to appear, though the plain!ff remained present. Instead, the defendant sent a reply dated 11.06.2021 to the earlier legal no!ce dated 25.05.2021. Subsequently, the plain!ff issued another legal no!ce dated 12.06.2021 declaring the agreement to sell dated 17.09.2020 as cancelled and forfei!ng the earnest money of ₹8,00,000. The defendant replied to the said no!ce on 24.06.2021. The plain!ff then ins!tuted the present civil suit on 24.06.2021 seeking a declara!on that the agreement stood cancelled and that the earnest money stood forfeited.

4. The defendant (respondent herein) was ini!ally proceeded against ex parte on 16.09.2021, though the ex parte proceedings were set aside on 26.04.2022. Therea@er, he filed wri$en statement on 23.05.2022 alleging breach of the agreement by the plain!ff. However, no relief for recovery of earnest money, or for specific performance was claimed therein.

5. Issues were framed on 05.09.2022. The plain!ff tendered affidavits of three witnesses on 19.10.2023 and the ma$er was adjourned for cross- examina!on. During the pendency of the evidence stage, the defendant moved an applica!on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-12) seeking amendment of the wri$en statement by incorpora!ng paragraph 5-A, alleging breach of contractual obliga!ons by the plain!ff, fabrica!on of evidence, and asser!ng readiness and willingness on the basis of a legal no!ce dated 20.05.2023, purportedly sent by him during pendency of the suit. The defendant also sought to introduce a consequen!al prayer for refund of the earnest money with interest in the event the agreement was held to be cancelled, and further expressed his inten!on to file a counter-claim.

6. The trial Court, vide order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), allowed amendment of the wri$en statement to the extent of incorpora!on of the addi!onal pleadings and relief. However, with regard to the counter-claim, the Court