IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved On: 21.08.2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Parveen Garvi ......Petitioner Vs.

Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate Ms. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is filed for setting aside order dated 25.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 19.10.2023, passed by learned Appellate Court by which the first amendment application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 09.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same he filed civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the year 2015. The civil suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. And enquiry proceedings carried out by respondent-employer was declared to be illegal, null and void being in violation of principles of natural justice and the same was set aside. Appellant was ordered to be reinstated with backwages and he was held entitled to recover the arrears of his salary and other benefits from respondent-employer.

3. The respondent-Insurance Company filed appeal against judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 and learned First Appellate Court stayed the operation of judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint, wherein, it was stated that due to the illegal termination order and due to the use of word “misconduct in the termination order”, stigma is caste upon the petitioner which dis-entitled the petitioner from seeking employment elsewhere and petitioner was not able to earn since last 08 years. He further pleaded that because of this he has sustained huge monitory loss for which respondent is responsible and, therefore, is liable to pay damages to the petitioner. In his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC he pleaded that in the year 2014 he was earning an amount of Rs.12,47,000/- per annum. He remained unemployed for a long period of 08 years. He sustained loss of earning to the tune of Rs.1,05,99,500/- because of this.

5. He, therefore, prayed in the application that he had fought for a long period of 08 years in court cases and spent expenditure in litigation as well, therefore, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,25,99,500/- as damages for which the respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner. Further, that seeking damages cannot be said to be barred by time since Section 40 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, clearly indicates that the application for damages can be made at any stage. Therefore, in his application, the petitioner wanted to add the following relief in the prayer clause:-

“It is further prayed that the defendant may kindly be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,25,99,500/- to the plaintiff on account of illegal termination of plaintiff alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.”

6. The respondent opposed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC by stating that application cannot be allowed as per proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the proviso provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Therefore, party who seeks relief to amend pleadings after the c