[144] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 Raman Anand …Petitioner versus Randhir Raj Anand and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined.

[2] For the convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position as before the Trial Court i.e. petitioner as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants.

[3] The plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the transfer deed bearing document No.1092 dated 03.05.2018 is a result of fraud. After the trial has proceeded considerably and the plaintiff had concluded his evidence, an application was moved under Order VI Rule

17 CPC for amendment of the plaint while defendant was leading evidence whereby plaintiff proposed to amend the prayer clause. The Trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the amendment is not bona fide and is being sought with the intent to delay the trial.

[4] Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court. He submits that the findings recorded by the Trial Court to the effect that the proposed amendment shall delay trial further is wrong and is without appreciating the fact that the plaintiff has already undertaken not to lead any further evidence. He submits that the plaintiff by way of present amendment has amended prayer clause and the same is necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

[5] Per contra, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2, submits that a perusal of the proposed amendment would reveal that the plaintiff wants to blow hot and cold in the same breath. While in the original prayer clause, he prayed for declaration that the document under challenge is a result of fraud, whereas by way of proposed amendment, he wants to incorporate a prayer to the effect that the same document has an effect of bestowing ½ share upon the plaintiff.

[6] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

[7] The original prayer made in the plaint reads as under:-

“1) A decree of declaration to the effect that the transfer deed bearing document no. 1092 dated 03.05.2018 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Badkhal is illegal, forged, fabricated, and has been got executed by playing fraud, pressure and coercion is void, illegal and nonest and the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants:

xxx ”

[8] The proposed prayer after incorporating the amendment reads as under:-

“i) A decree of declaration to the effect that the transfer deed bearing. document no.1092 dated 03.05.2018 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Badkhal is illegal, forged, fabricated, and has been got executed by playing fraud, pressure and coercion is void, illegal and nonest and the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and a decree of declaration thereby declaring the transfer deed bearing document no. 1092 Registrar Badkhal dated 03.05.2018 registered in the office of Sub to have been executed by Raj Kumar Anand in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in equal share and there by declaring the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to be joint owners to the extent of ½ share of the suit property;

xxx”

[9] Trite it is that at the time of adjudicating upon the amendment, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the amendment. Keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff undertook not to lead any further e