IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve:-30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-08.10.2025 Gagandeep Singh Brar & others ......Petitioners Vs.

Mandeep Singh & ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Mr. A.P.S. Shergil, Advocate for respondent No. 5 ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. Present revision petition is preferred against order dated 24.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagraon, District Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land measuring 125 kanals 5 marlas. Petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed reply to the same denying the ownership of respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement whereby certain new facts were pleaded. Then, petitioner/defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of their written statement since they wanted to rebut the replication to the written statement filed by the respondents. However, the application was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagraon, District Ludhiana. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends as under:-

(i) That the suit is at initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of their written statement is allowed by the Court. (ii) That the replication is part of the pleadings and if new facts have been raised which are to be rebutted then amended written statement is required to be filed.

(iii) That by allowing the amendment in the written statement, there would be no change in the nature of the case.

(iv) That the present revision petition be allowed and impugned order dated

24.03.2025 be set aside.

(v) He relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of Salig Ram and another vs. Shiv Shankar and others, 1971 AIR Punjab and Haryana

437 and on the case of Hakam Singh vs. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that it has been categorically mentioned in the plaint that they are owners in possession and new fact has been taken by petitioners in the amended written statement. She further contends that in the written statement which is already part of record, petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 never mentioned that they have sown the crop and now they are taking this new plea in the amended written statement. She, therefore, prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasoning given by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagraon, District Ludhiana while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is that as per Order 6 Rule 1 CPC pleadings include only plaint or written statement and further that the bar of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC which is about deemed admission of the facts of the plaint which are not denied, is not applicable in the case of replication. It has further been held that petitioners want to amend the written statement for the purpose of denying the facts mentioned in the replication, which is to be filed after filing written statement, which is not permissible.

7. The reasoning given by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagraon, District Ludhiana is not acceptable to this Court.

8. Hon