IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 Karamjit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Balwinder Kaur ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Chanakya Batta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIKAS BAHL , J. (ORAL)

CM-18301-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the correct impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dasuya.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and order dated 08.08.2025 is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

CR-6154-2025

1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2025 (correct order having been annexed with CM-18301-CII-2025) passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dasuya vide which application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint has been partly allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession on the suit land. It is submitted that the plaintiff had taken the land on lease from Surinder Singh s/o Pritam Singh vide Lease Deed/Patanama dated 08.01.2019 for a period of 8 years and thereafter on 20.04.2022, the said lease deed was extended till May, 2025. It is stated that thereafter Surinder Singh died and his legal heirs namely Gurinider Kaur Dhatt, Amritjot Kaur Dhatt and Gurnit Kaur Dhatt had extended the lease from May, 2025 to May, 2030. It is stated that the said extension by the legal heirs of Surinder Singh was during the pendency of case and thus, the said subsequent events could not be incorporated in the original plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of plaint to incorporate the fact with respect to the subsequent lease deed executed by legal heirs. It is further submitted that the second amendment sought in the amendment application was on account of an inadvertent error, inasmuch as, instead of May 2025; May 2023 was mentioned in para 2 of the plaint.

3. It is argued that the trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2025 had allowed the amendment with respect to typographical mistake but had not allowed the amendment with respect to the averments made with regard to extension of lease deed by LRs of Surinder Singh. It is further submitted that since the present suit is a suit for permanent injunction, thus, the petitioner- plaintiff wishes to show that not only Surinder Singh had extended the lease deed in favour of the petitioner but also his LRs had further extended the said lease deed during the pendency of suit. It is further argued that the said amendment could not have been incorporated despite due diligence as the said extension had not taken place at the time of filing of the original plaint. It is thus, prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order to the extent that the application for amendment had been dismissed, be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for amendment be allowed in toto.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

4. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that there is an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and for the said reason, he is delaying the matter. It is further submitted that respondent had filed civil revision bearing No.3442 of 2025, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 directing the Court to expedite the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that in case the amendment is allowed, then the petitioner should not be granted any opportunity to lead further evidence as the evidence of the petitioner have already been closed.

5. Learned counsel for th