IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7313-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Jagdev Singh & Another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gurdevi & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harjaap Singh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in the Suit bearing No.CS/446/2020 titled as “Jagdev Singh & Another Vs. Gurdevi & Others” vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment by correction of names of defendant No.3 Shinder Kaur to Mohinder Kaur and defendant No.6 Jagdev Singh to Sukhdev Singh in heading of plaint has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners had filed Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction on dated

29.01.2020. On 11.09.2025, the petitioners had filed the present application (Annexure P2) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for correction of the names of defendant No.3 Shinder Kaur to Mohinder Kaur, and defendant No.6 Jagdev Singh to Sukhdev Singh, in the heading of the plaint. The defendants No.3 to 6 had filed their reply dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P5) to the said application for amendment filed by the petitioners. Vide the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P1), application of the petitioners has been dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the learned trial Court was in error in dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioners as it failed to appreciate that the petitioners had sought amendment merely for correction of names of defendants No.3 and 6 in the head note/Memo of Parties of the suit. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was a bona fide mistake of the petitioners in incorporating incorrect names of the said defendants No.3 and 6 in the Memo of Parties of the plaint. It is submitted that as soon as the said mistake came to the notice of the petitioners, the application for amendment was filed. It is argued that the said amendment would not have any effect on the nature of the suit or on the outcome of the case as neither any new pleadings are to be made, nor any new evidence is to be led. Moreover, the persons appearing on behalf of the defendants No.3 and 6 are the same persons which the petitioners are seeking to correct/incorporate.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is trying to bring on record the actual and true facts of the case as and when they came into its notice so that there should not be multiplicity of litigation. But the defendants no. 3 and 6 are concealing the actual and true facts since beginning from Ld. Trial Court, since as per the memo of parties/headnote, the defendant no. 3 is Ms. Shinder Kaur and defendant no. 6 is Sh. Jagdev Singh but the power of attorney, written statement filed on behalf of them, has been filed under the names of Mohinder Kaur and Sukhdev Singh. The Trial court without applying Judicial mind has taken on record said documents which should not have been taken on record by the trial court since no person by the name of Mohinder Kaur or Sukhdev Singh is there in the memo of parties/

headnote which clearly shows malafide and misconduct on their part.

5. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that the defendants no. 3 and 6 namely Mohinder Kaur and Sukhdev Singh instead of disclosing the true facts to learned Trial Court about their identity being the legal heirs of Sh. Kewal Krishan rather they appeared by stepping in the shoes and under the disguise of Shinder Kaur and Jagdev Singh with malafide intention. It is submitted that even when the written sta