IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5675-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-22.08.2025 Dr. Jitander Nath Kalia ....Petitioner VERSUS Manohar Lal Arora & Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been directed against the orders dated 01.07.2025 and 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalka, whereby the request of the petitioner to file a replication to the amended written statement of respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 and to lead evidence in that regard has been declined.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that in a suit for possession filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement. Issues were framed and both parties led their evidence. Thereafter, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement was filed on 07.10.2016 by defendants No.1 to 4. Reply was filed by the plaintiff. The said application was dismissed on 23.11.2016. Against that order, defendants filed civil revision. The said civil revision was allowed on 13.02.2025 with the following observations:

“ In the present case, the amendment sought is qua incorporating the factum of the petition being CRM-M-32771-2010 as also to amend para No.8 of the written statement. It is the contention of learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 – petitioners that the entire evidence now stands led and in view of the proposed amendment, no other evidence is required to be led. In view of the fact that no further evidence needs to be led, as stated by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 – petitioners, the present petition is allowed and the application filed by defendants No.1 to 4 – petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement is allowed subject to payment of ₹20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) as costs to be paid to plaintiff. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent.

However, it is made clear that as stated by learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, no further evidence would be allowed to be led.

The Trial Court is requested to decide the matter expeditiously.”

3. Pursuant to the above, defendants filed the amended written statement. As directed in the above order, no further evidence was led by the defendants.

4. On 01.07.2025, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalka passed the following order:

“No rebuttal evidence is present. At this stage in terms of directions of the Hon’ble High Court, amended written statement on behalf of defendants No.1 to 4 has been filed. Copy supplied. Costs already paid. Learned counsel for plaintiff seeks opportunity to file replication to the amended written statement. Filing of replication is not a matter of right but a discretion of the Court. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 has only permitted filing of amended written statement subject to costs. Rendering of further evidence by plaintiff has been disallowed. Costs have already been tendered and received. Thus, no ground is made out for filing of replication. Request of plaintiff stands declined.

Adjourned to 19.07.2025 for rebuttal evidence. It shall be Last Opportunity. Parties are directed to expedite proceedings..”

5. It is against this order dated 01.07.2025 that the plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition contending that once amended written statement was filed, he should have been permitted to file replication and lead evidence thereto.

6. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. A perusal of the record reveals that except for mentioning the fact of CRM-M-32771-2010 before the Hon’ble High Court and contents of that petition, no other fresh plea has been raised by way of amendment. No other amendment has been made. The evidence of the plaintiff and defendants had already come on record as observed vide order dated 13.