IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.09.2025 Rahul and another … Petitioners Versus Ajmer Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal, vide which the application filed by the petitioners/defendants No.3 & 4 under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of written statement was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that one Ajmer Singh instituted a suit (Annexure P-2) for possession by way of specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 07.08.2012 against four defendants: Mamo Devi, Neelam wife of Balwan Singh, Rahul (minor) son of Balwan Singh, and Garima (minor) daughter of Balwan Singh. Defendants No.3 & 4 were sued through their mother, Smt. Neelam, being their natural guardian.

2.1 It was averred that registered agreement to sell dated 07.08.2012 had been executed by Balwan Singh for the sale of land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Kheri Matarwa, District Kaithal, to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. Rs.4,75,000/- was paid as earnest money, and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on 07.05.2013.

2.2 Before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, Balwan Singh expired on 23.03.2013. The plaintiff (Ajmer Singh) called upon the defendants to honour the agreement but they did not agree. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted.

3. The defendants opposed the suit by way of a written statement (Annexure P-3), wherein execution of the agreement to sell was denied. It was averred that Balwan Singh and his brother Rajinder had financial dealing with the plaintiff. Being in need of money, they approached the plaintiff and requested him to lend a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to them (Rs.4,00,000/- to each to Balwan Singh and Rajinder). The plaintiff accordingly advanced a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to Balwan Singh on 15.06.2002 and Rs.4,00,000/- to Rajinder on 07.08.2012. The amount was to be repaid along with interest @ 1.5% per month. The said amount was repaid with interest in cash and through cheques, the details of which would be furnished during the course of the trial.

3.1 It was averred that the plaintiff had obtained the thumb impressions of Balwan Singh on a paper on the pretext of preparing a security document in lieu of the loan advanced. It was averred that Balwan Singh never had the intention to sell his agricultural land and that the security document had been misutilized by the plaintiff. On merits also, a similar stand was taken.

4. Issues in the case were framed on 13.10.2017 (Annexure P-4).

5. Vide order of an even date, i.e. 13.10.2017, the defence of the defendants was struck off on account of non-payment of costs. CR-1560- 2023 was preferred by the defendants, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P-8).

6. In the meantime, an application for amendment of the written statement (Annexure P-6) was filed by the present petitioners. By way of the proposed amendment, preliminary objection No.10 was sought to be introduced, along with paragraphs No.6 and 8 on merits. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-7) and by way of the impugned order, the said application was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that the guardian of the petitioners, i.e. their mother,