IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Gram Panchayat (now superseded)

Municipal Corporation, Manesar, Gurugram ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Sonu alias Sunil ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Apoorv Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Ms. Rupa Pathania, and Ms. Nimisha Pathak, Advocates for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the defendant laying challenge to the order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram; whereby application of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule

17 CPC for amendment of plaint, has been allowed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff as far back as on 03.05.2018. Thereafter, after the conclusion of evidence and filing of written arguments, respondent had moved application dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) for amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that therefore, respondent is seeking to amend the plaint in 2025 i.e. 7 years after filing of the suit on 03.05.2018. It is pointed out that subsequently, the respondent had moved another application dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) under Order 23 Rules 1 and 3 read with Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the suit; which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-9). It is submitted that during the pendency of the first application for amendment, respondent has again filed instant/second application dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-11) for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that having regard to the advance stage of the proceedings on which amendment had been sought, the learned Trial Court was statutorily bound to record a specific satisfaction that despite exercise of due diligence, plaintiff was unable to raise the proposed amendments prior to commencement of trial as mandated by the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is submitted that however in the present case, a perusal of the instant application (Annexure P-11) shows that in para 3 thereof, the respondent himself has admitted that “As such, it becomes necessary to file the Fresh Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC pleading complete facts and circumstances which have become available and known after filing of the earlier plaint in year 2018, and at the same time, the earlier application is not being pressed in view of the present fresh application.” Learned counsel contends that in such a situation and in view of the above admission of the respondent, amendment could not have been permitted.

3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the proposed amendment reveals that the facts sought to be introduced, pertain to proceedings and events which have admittedly taken place prior to the initiation of the suit. Moreover, by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff is virtually seeking to rewrite para No. 7 of the plaint and consequential amendment in the prayer clause, mainly to incorporate detailed chronological sequence of revenue entries, mutations,, consolidation proceedings, judicial orders, notification, writ petitions and their final outcome including the latest judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No.6990/2014 (Government of Haryana vs. Jai Singh and Ors.), which were well within the knowledge long before filing of his suit. It is further submitted that amendment application has been filed at a highly belated stage after conclusion of evidence and when the matter has already reached at the stage of final arguments and have also been partly heard. It is pointed out that previous amendment application, and even application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty under Order 23 Rules 1 and 3 CPC have been dismissed. It is contended that therefore