IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-455-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on: 19.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 01.07.2025 Naresh Kumar & Another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Devinder Singh & Another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent/defendants and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed Civil Suit dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure P1) seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 04.12.2015 for suit land measuring 25 kanals. It was averred that the suit land was sold by the respondents to the petitioners for total sale consideration of Rs.77,81,250/- all of which was paid by the petitioners to the respondents. Despite that, possession of the suit land stayed with the respondents. Even no target date was set for execution of the sale deed. Alternate prayer in the suit was for recovery of sale consideration along with interest; and other allied reliefs.

4. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2); to which replication dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P3) was filed by the petitioners.

5. Subsequently, the petitioners filed present application dated 29.8.2024 (Annexure P4) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to the following effect: –

“2. That while filling the suit, the plaintiffs Naresh Kumar and Ved Prakash could not inform their counsel about one fact, which took place in the house of defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh. In fact, on 03-03-2019 the father of the plaintiff Mr Sunder Lal S/o Uttam Chand visited the house of the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh along with his son Ved Prakash, his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wajir Singh (deceased) S/ o Ajit Singh for amicable settlement before filling the suit. The matter of execution of registration of sale deed was discussed there, where the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs. This discussion was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff no. 1 Rajan Gakhar. The plaintiffs want to bring on record said visit and outcome of the meeting dated 03-03-2019, which took place between above said persons. So, the plaintiffs want to add another paragraph in the plaint as para no. 12-A. On 03- 03-2019, the father of the plaintiff Sunder Lal S/o Uttam Chand visited the house of the defendant Devinder Singh along with his son Ved Prakash, his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wazir Singh(deceased) S/o Ajit Singh discussed the matter at length for amicable settlement before filling the suit. In said meeting, the defendant no.1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs soon and he also admitted that the plaintiff Naresh Kumar were never at fault rather he helped him whenever he needed. Whole of the instance was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff no. 1 Rajan Gakhar as three video clips.”

6. This application was resisted by the respondents by filing reply dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P5). Vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6), application of the petitioners has been dismissed.

7. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is unsustainable for not assigning an