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

CR-5770-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 26.08.2025 Sohan Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Suresh Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging two orders both dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 2409 of 2024, titled as “Sohan Singh v. Suresh Kumar”. By the first impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to correct the name of the defendant’s father. By the second impugned order of the same date, the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of status quo ante by putting the plaintiff back into possession of the suit property.

I. Challenge to the order dismissing application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the original agreement to sell dated 11.04.2006. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been in possession since execution of the agreement and had even raised construction thereon.

3. In the plaint, the defendant was described as “Suresh Kumar S/o Banta”. Subsequently, it transpired that the actual name of the defendant’s father was Ganesh Das, and “Banta” was only his alias. The plaintiff therefore moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to correct the name of the father of defendant from “Banta” to “Banta alias Ganesh Das.” The plaintiff pleaded that the amendment was merely formal in nature and would not alter the nature of the suit.

4. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application with the following observations:

“The suit is already at an advanced stage. The amendment now sought is based on information that was reasonably available to the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. No explanation has been offered for the delay in seeking this amendment. Plaintiff has not given any sufficient reason to believe as to why he was not aware about the name of father of the defendant earlier. No documents placed on record by the plaintiff regarding proper address and name of the father of the defendant. The purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to allow the amendment to decide the real controversy between the parties and for proper adjudication of the case, but not to fill the loopholes of plaintiff’s case.”

5. At the same time, on the very same date i.e. 23.05.2025, while deciding the plaintiff’s separate application for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, the learned Civil Judge recorded the following order:

“Today, the case was fixed for arguments on pending applications. It is brought to the notice of the Court that an application for substituted service of defendant i.e. Suresh Kumar S/o Banta Singh dated 01.02.2025 is pending till date. Defendant as mentioned in the plaint has not come in the Court. On 16.12.2024, Sh. B.S. Sidhu filed power of attorney on behalf of defendant named Suresh Kumar Todi S/o Damodar Dass Todi claiming to have purchased the suit property from Suresh, S/o Ganesh Dass and submitted that plaintiff submitted the wrong particulars of defendant. Therefore, proper adjudication of the suit, presence of Suresh S/o Banta Singh or S/o Ganesh Dass is required in this case. Therefore, Court is satisfied that the real defendant Suresh S/o Banta Singh cannot be served through ordinary service. Therefore, application of the plaintiff for substituted service of the defendant, Suresh S/o Banta Singh or S/o Ganesh Dass is allowed. Let, he be served through Munadi and publication as well