A party is entitled to amend their pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to incorporate subsequent events, such as dispossession occurring after the institution of the suit, as these facts could not have been pleaded in the original written statement.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moved by defendant No.1/respondent for amendment of written statement as well as counter claim has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that facts of the case have not been correctly appreciated while allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Rather, false facts have been pleaded in the application seeking amendment alleging that defendant No.1/respondent has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit property in the month of July 2024. Infact, defendant was never in possession of the suit property which is in the occupation of plaintiff since long. The Local Commissioner was also appointed who has given his report and respondent has filed the objections against the said report. The trial has already commenced and respondent/defendant No.1 could not have been allowed to amend the written statement as well as counter claim at a belated stage and impugned order is thus not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc. Petition Main (Original) No.356 of 2022 titled ‘Sarabjit Singh Vs. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur’, (2009) 2 SCC 409 ‘ Vidyabal and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another and judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CR-1498-2025 (O&M) titled ‘ M/s Galaxy Logistic Service Vs. M/s Trim India Pvt. Ltd.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the material on file, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

4. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property. As per his version, the grandfather of plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property which was inherited by his legal heir, namely, Kuldeep Singh. Said Kuldeep Singh gave the suit land to his son Ram Singh and Ram Singh sold the land to defendant No.1. However, Ram Singh never delivered possession of the suit land to defendant No.1, which is in the possession of plaintiff for the last many years but his name is not recorded in the column of possession in the revenue record. Subsequently, defendants No.2 and 3 have purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 and they want to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and a decree for permanent injunction was sought restraining them from interfering in his possession.

5. Defendant No.1 has filed written statement as well as counter claim to the effect that it is he who is in exclusive possession over the suit property and possession of plaintiff has been denied. By way of counter claim, a decree for permanent injunction has been sought restraining the plaintiff from interfering in his possession. During pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed vide Order dated 14.09.2023 and Halqa Kanugo was directed to visit the spot to submit a report as to who is in possession of the suit property. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report but during pendency of the suit the application in han