212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7293-2023 Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Vishal and others ...Petitioners Versus Sunita and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate and Mr. Saurav Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

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 08.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ganaur, Sonepat, vide which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners/defendants for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the suit was filed by respondent No.1-Sunita on 12.07.2018 on the plea that her father-in-law was the owner of the property and she had a registered Will dated 10.01.1997 in her favour. It is submitted that the written statement was filed in the said case on 08.10.2018 and in the said written statement, inadvertently, the petitioners did not take the plea that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary property and the fact that the father- in-law of respondent No.1 was the owner, was not disputed. It is submitted that when the evidence of the defendants had started, the petitioners, after seeing the relevant records, found that the property in question was ancestral coparcenary property and accordingly, moved an application for amendment with the prayer to take the said plea in the written statement. It is submitted that the said application had been dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.09.2023, which order deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as, the said plea is only an additional plea which is sought to be taken in the written statement and the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment in the written statement. It is thus, prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1:-

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that in the present case, the issues were framed on 01.03.2021 and the plaintiff had examined eight witnesses who had also been cross-examined by the defendants and thereafter, plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 04.02.2023 and the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 15.03.2023, on which date, the defendants had taken a date and the present application had been filed on 05.04.2023 after commencement of the trial. It is submitted that in the present application for amendment, it had been stated that it was on account of inadvertence that the plea could not be taken and thus, it is submitted that there was no due diligence in filing the application for amendment. It is further submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2018 and the petitioners are purposely trying to delay the proceedings as the present suit is a suit for possession. It is argued that in the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the paragraphs which the petitioners wish to incorporate have not been mentioned and even the plea of the suit property being ancestral coparcenary property has only been taken for the sake of it, as in the said application even the name of the common ancestor, four generations from whom the property has allegedly devolved have not been mentioned. It is submitted that the present application had been moved only to nullify the evidence led by the plaintiff who has been able to prima facie prove the registered Will dated 10.01.1997. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CR-1423-2025 titled as “Bir Singh Vs. Sohan