IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-757-2025 Date of decision: 05.02.2025 Raj Kumar Batra and another ...Petitioners Versus Kashish Batra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 (Annexures P-4 and P-6) passed by the trial Court wherein amendment application of respondent No.1 was allowed and application of the petitioners for filing reply to the amendment application, after the passing of the order dated 09.01.2025 was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the property in question, on the plea that the property was joint family property, inasmuch as, the parties constituted a joint hindu family. Subsequently, an application for amendment was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for including other properties, which as per the case of respondent No.1 were also purchased from the joint funds. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had not been diligent in filing the application for amendment, inasmuch as, the suit was of the year 2018 whereas the application had been filed in the year 2022. It is further submitted that even the order dated 23.01.2025 to the extent that the petitioners have not been permitted to file reply to the said application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be permitted to file reply and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be decided afresh.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned orders are in accordance with law, and deserve to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, who is a relative of the petitioners, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent No.1 is owner in possession of the property in question to the extent of 1/6th share being his share in the joint family property and a consequential relief of restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff was also sought. The said plea was based on the ground that the parties constituted a joint hindu family and the family chart was detailed in para 1 of the plaint and it was further averred that the property in question was purchased from the joint family funds. In the suit, apart from petitioners, their relatives and relatives of respondent No.1-plaintiff, Indian Overseas Bank was impleaded as defendant No.7 and State of Haryana was impleaded as defendant No.8. In the plaint, injunction was sought from restraining the defendants, which included the bank as well as the State, from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, auction etc. in any manner and also from restraining defendant No.8 i.e., State of Haryana from using coercive methods to recover the loan amount from loan account No.TL-129703351200006. A perusal of the record would show that defendant No.7-bank had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the said application is pending adjudication. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the plea that he had learnt from reliable sources on 26.03.2021 that there were two other properties which were also purchased from the joint funds of the family and thus, the plaintiff wanted to include the said properties in the suit.

5. On 05.01.2024, the trial Court had passed the following order:-

“Present: Shri Surin Singla, Advocate for plaintiff.

Sh. Mohan Monga, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 6.

Sh.