IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Sudha … Petitioner Versus Hargian Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Varshit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Assandh, vide which the application filed by petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) was dismissed.

2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff. It was claimed that vide mortgage deed dated 20.08.2018, the respondent/defendant had mortgaged his land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas, situated in Village Ardana, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff for a period of two years, i.e. 18.08.2018 to 18.08.2020, for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. Possession of the suit land had been delivered. It was claimed that the respondent/defendant had been threatening to interfere in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit land, as a result of which the suit (Annexure P-1) was instituted.

3. The suit was opposed by way of a written statement (Annexure P-2), wherein it was contended that the mortgage deed was an unregistered document, which was required to be compulsorily registered and that being so, was not admissible in the eyes of law. It was also averred that the mortgage deed dated 20.09.2018 was an ambiguous and uncertain document and did not provide a complete description of the suit land. In fact, the execution of the mortgage deed was denied.

4. Vide order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) issues were framed. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was moved seeking amendment of the plaint to convert it into a suit for recovery. The stand taken was that the mortgage period had expired and the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to recover the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- paid at the time of mortgage deed. Despite several requests, the respondent/defendant had neither taken back the possession nor refunded the amount. The application for amendment was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-5), again contending that the mortgage deed was a forged and fabricated document. It was also averred that the application for ad interim injunction moved by the petitioner/plaintiff had been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2022, against which an appeal had been preferred and the same was also dismissed on 04.12.2023. It was further averred that the application for amendment had, therefore, been filed after having remained unsuccessful in the prayer for grant of ad interim injunction. It was also averred that the nature of the suit would be altered. Dismissal of the application was prayed for.

5. By way of the impugned order, the application for amendment was dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has gravely erred in dismissing the application for amendment. He submits that the suit for recovery was not barred by limitation as it would be governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Limitation Act’). He further submits that the nature of the suit would not be changed, for the suit for injunction had been filed pursuant to execution of the mortgage deed, the execution of which had been denied by the respondent-defendant, and since the mortgage period had expired, the suit for recovery was filed. He submits that had the petitioner/plaintiff not filed the application for amendment, an objection under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would have been raised on filing of a fresh suit.

8. Per cont