213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5788-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Harbans Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus Mohinder Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for LRs of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4.

Mr. M.S. Batth, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

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 03.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in case bearing No.CS- 47615-2013 dated 06.08.2013 titled as “Harbans Kaur and another Vs. Mohinder Singh and others” vide which an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration in the year 2012 to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Madhu Jain, wife of Anoop Jain, is illegal, null and void. It is submitted that other prayers including the prayer for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were also made. It is argued that subsequently, the petitioners came to know that sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 which was also illegal and thus, the petitioners moved an application dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P- 3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and in the same, they wanted to make an amendment to challenge the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011. It is submitted that the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2019 which is against law and deserves to be set aside and application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the present revision petition and have submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2012 and one of the prayer made in the suit (Annexure P-1) was for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 was null and void. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that reference of the earlier sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was made in the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 itself and thus, once, the petitioners-plaintiffs were challenging the sale deed dated 26.10.2012, it was apparent that they had knowledge about the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011. It is further submitted that the mutation with respect to the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011, executed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust in favour of defendant No.1, was also duly sanctioned and it is only because defendant No.1 had become owner that he could have executed subsequent sale deed dated 26.10.2012, which has been challenged in the suit. It is argued that the written statement was filed by defendant No.3 on 24.12.2012, and a specific pleading with respect to sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was made at that stage and thereafter, petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 had come for examination in chief on 23.02.2015 and the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 was exhibited by her as Ex.PW2/1. It is submitted that the issues in the present case were framed on 06.03.2014, and thus, it is apparent that the trial had commenced and it is after a period of five years from the trial having commenced that the present application dated 12.07.2019 was filed, at a time when repeated adjournments were being sought by the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence and after last opportunity having been granted to conclude the same. It is submitted that there has been no due diligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the application for amendment, and thus, amendment is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

4. Learned counsel