(119) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 25.02.2026 Pronounced on: 06.03.2026 Uploaded on: 09.03.2026 KULDEEP KAUR ...Petitioner Vs.

RAM SINGH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pragun Goyal, Advocate for the respondent/caveator.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking relief against alienation of the suit property. It was contended that the suit property was purchased entirely with the funds provided by the respondent/plaintiff, whereas the sale deed was erroneously executed in the name of the petitioner. The parties to the suit are husband and wife. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein the allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff were refuted. It was contended that the suit was a counterblast to a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the minor children through the petitioner, that there existed a matrimonial dispute between the parties, and that the property in question was purchased out of the joint funds of the parties. Issues in the suit were framed on 19.07.2024. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate an additional relief declaring that the entire expenses for the plot and sale deed were borne by the plaintiff and that the transaction was a benami transaction. The application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant. The learned trial Court, after considering the submissions, allowed the application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the trial Court.

3. The present revision petition has been contested by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a caveat.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge has failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. It was submitted that the purchase of the house was made in the year 2012-13, whereas the application for amendment was filed on 15.04.2025. The limitation period for challenging the sale deed is three years, and, therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. He further contended that the learned Civil Judge did not consider that the proposed amendment would alter the entire nature of the suit, which is impermissible under settled law. The original suit was filed for permanent injunction, whereas the proposed amendment sought to introduce a relief of declaration, thereby changing the nature of the suit from one for injunction to one for declaratory relief. It was also submitted that the proposed amendment was moved at a belated stage, and the learned Civil Judge did not take into account the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, as the application was filed after the commencement of the trial, and there was no averment in the application to show that, despite exercising due diligence, the plaintiff could not take up this plea initially.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator contended that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. It was submitted that the learned Civil Judge had rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in the Court to allow the amendment in order to do substantial justice. It was further contended that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but only claimed an additional relief, without altering the pleadings. It was emphasized that it